Skip to main content

Full text of "Beauty for America; proceedings of the White House Conference on Natural Beauty"

See other formats


Proceedings of the 

White House Conference 

on Natural Beauty 


MAY 24-25, 1965 

From the collection of the 

z n 

D T 


i a 


San Francisco, California 


The Call of the President 
The Transcript of the Conference 
Reports of the Panel Chairmen 
The Response of the President 

Proceedings of the 
White House Conference on Natural Beauty 

MAY 24-25, 1965 

Library of Congress 
Catalog Card Number: 65-65700 

WASHINGTON, D.C. : 1965 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 
Washington, D.C., 20402 - Price $2.75 (paper) 

These proceedings present the edited and in some cases revised 
transcript of the White House Conference on Natural Beauty, which 
was held in Washington, B.C., May 24 and 25, 1965. Also in- 
cluded in the volume are the action recommendations of the Con- 
ference, President Johnson's address to the Congress of February 8, 
1965, and a number of additional statements submitted for the rec- 
ord by participants. 

The conference program consisted of two general sessions, 15 
individual panel meetings, an open meeting of the Recreation Ad- 
visory Council, and a final session addressed by President Johnson. 
All meetings were held in the auditoriums of the State Department 
and the Civil Service Commission except for the last, which was held 
in the East Room of the White House. 

The conference was attended by some 800 delegates and an ad- 
ditional number of observers. A single consolidated directory of 
the delegates and other participants is presented in an appendix to 
this volume. 



Chapter Page 

1 The Conference Gall: The President's Message to the 

Congress 1 

2 The General Session: Remarks of Mrs. Johnson and 

Mr. Rockefeller 17 

3 The Recreation Advisory Council: An Open Meeting. . 23 

The 15 Conference Panels: 

4 The Federal-State-Local Partnership 43 

5 The Townscape 75 

6 Parks and Open Spaces Ill 

7 Water and Waterfronts 141 

8 The Design of the Highway 177 

9 Scenic Roads and Parkways 213 

10 Roadside Control 249 

11 The Farm Landscape 281 

12 Reclamation of the Landscape 31 5 

13 The Underground Installation of Utilities 359 

14 Automobile Junkyards 403 

15 The New Suburbia 439 

16 Landscape Action Program 469 

17 Education 507 

18 Citizen Action 559 

19 Further Statements Submitted for the Record 593 

20 Reports of the Panel Chairmen 631 

21 Response of the President 675 

Appendix: Organization of the Conference 687 

Conference Directory and Nominal Index 693 

Topical Index 757 



(Message from the President of the United States to the Congress, 
February 8, 1965) 

For centuries Americans have drawn strength and inspiration 
from the beauty of our country. It would be a neglectful generation 
indeed, indifferent alike to the judgment of history and the command 
of principle, which failed to preserve and extend such a heritage for 
its descendants. 

Yet the storm of modern change is threatening to blight and dimin- 
ish in a few decades what has been cherished and protected for 

A growing population is swallowing up areas of natural beauty 
with its demands for living space, and is placing increased demand on 
our overburdened areas of recreation and pleasure. 

The increasing tempo of urbanization and growth is already 
depriving many Americans of the right to live in decent surroundings. 
More of our people are crowding into cities and being cut off from 
nature. Cities themselves reach out into the countryside, destroying 
streams and trees and meadows as they go. A modern highway may 
wipe out the equivalent of a 50-acre park with every mile. And 
people move out from the city to get closer to nature only to find 
that nature has moved farther from them. 

The modern technology which has added much to our lives can 
also have a darker side. Its uncontrolled waste products are menac- 
ing the world we live in, our enjoyment and our health. The air we 
breathe, our water, our soil and wildlife, are being blighted by the 
poisons and chemicals which are the byproducts of technology and 
industry. The skeletons of discarded cars litter the countryside. 
The same society which receives the rewards of technology, must, 
as a cooperating whole, take responsibility for control. 

To deal with these new problems will require a new conservation. 
We must not only protect the countryside and save it from destruc- 


tion, we must restore what has been destroyed and salvage the beauty 
and charm of our cities. Our conservation must be not just the 
classic conservation of protection and development, but a creative 
conservation of restoration and innovation. Its concern is not with 
nature alone, but with the total relation between man and the world 
around him. Its object is not just man's welfare, but the dignity of 
man's spirit. 

In this conservation the protection and enhancement of man's 
opportunity to be in contact with beauty must play a major role. 

This means that beauty must not be just a holiday treat, but a part 
of our daily life. It means not just easy physical access, but equal 
social access for rich and poor, Negro and white, city dweller and 

Beauty is not an easy thing to measure. It does not show up in 
the gross national product, in a weekly paycheck, or in profit and 
loss statements. But these things are not ends in themselves. They 
are a road to satisfaction and pleasure and the good life. Beauty 
makes its own direct contribution to these final ends. Therefore it 
is one of the most important components of our true national income, 
not to be left out simply because statisticians cannot calculate its 

And some things we do know. Association with beauty can en- 
large man's imagination and revive his spirit. Ugliness can demean 
the people who live among it. What a citizen sees every day is his 
America. If it is attractive it adds to the quality of his life. If it is 
ugly it can degrade his existence. 

Beauty has other immediate values. It adds to safety whether 
removing direct dangers to health or making highways less monot- 
onous and dangerous. We also know that those who live in blighted 
and squalid conditions are more susceptible to anxieties and mental 

Ugliness is costly. It can be expensive to clean a soot-smeared 
building, or to build new areas of recreation when the old landscape 
could have been preserved far more cheaply. 

Certainly no one would hazard a national definition of beauty. 
But we do know that nature is nearly always beautiful. We do, for 
the most part, know what is ugly. And we can introduce, into all our 
planning, our programs, our building, and our growth, a conscious 
and active concern for the values of beauty. If we do this then 
we can be successful in preserving a beautiful America. 


There is much the Federal Government can do, through a range 
of specific programs, and as a force for public education. But a beau- 
tiful America will require the effort of government at every level, of 
business, and of private groups. Above all it will require the concern 
and action of individual citizens, alert to danger, determined to im- 
prove the quality of their surroundings, resisting blight, demanding 
and building beauty for themselves and their children. 

I am hopeful that we can summon such a national effort. For we 
have not chosen to have an ugly America. We have been careless, 
and often neglectful. But now that the danger is clear and the hour 
is late this people can place themselves in the path of a tide of blight 
which is often irreversible and always destructive. 

The Congress and the executive branch have each produced con- 
servation giants in the past. During the 88th Congress it was legis- 
lative-executive teamwork that brought progress. It is this same 
kind of partnership that will insure our continued progress. 

In that spirit as a beginning and stimulus I make the following 
proposals : 

The Cities 

Thomas Jefferson wrote that communities should be planned with 
an eye to the effect made upon the human spirit by being continually 
surrounded with a maximum of beauty. 

We have often sadly neglected this advice in the modern American 
city. Yet this is where most of our people live. It is where the 
character of our young is formed. It is where American civilization 
will be increasingly concentrated in years to come. 

Such a challenge will not be met with a few more parks or play- 
grounds. It requires attention to the architecture of building, the 
structure of our roads, preservation of historical buildings and monu- 
ments, careful planning of new suburbs. A concern for the enhance- 
ment of beauty must infuse every aspect of the growth and develop- 
ment of metropolitan areas. It must be a principal responsibility 
of local government, supported by active and concerned citizens. 

Federal assistance can be a valuable stimulus and help to such 
local efforts. 

I have recommended a community extension program which will 
bring the resources of the university to focus on problems of the 
community just as they have long been concerned with our rural 
areas. Among other things, this program will help provide training 


and technical assistance to aid in making our communities more 
attractive and vital. In addition, under the Housing Act of 1964, 
grants will be made to States for training of local governmental 
employees needed for community development. I am recommending 
a 1965 supplemental appropriation to implement this program. 

We now have two programs which can be of special help in creat- 
ing areas of recreation and beauty for our metropolitan area popula- 
tion : the open space land program and the land and water conserva- 
tion fund. 

I have already proposed full funding of the land and water conser- 
vation fund, and directed the Secretary of the Interior to give priority 
attention to serving the needs of our growing urban population. 

The primary purpose of the open space program has been to help 
acquire and assure open spaces in urban areas. I propose a series of 
new matching grants for improving the natural beauty of urban open 

The open space program should be adequately financed, and 
broadened by permitting grants to be made to help city governments 
acquire and clear areas to create small parks, squares, pedestrian 
malls, and playgrounds. 

In addition I will request authority in this program for a matching 
program to cities for landscaping, installation of outdoor lights and 
benches, creating attractive cityscapes along roads and in business 
areas, and for other beautification purposes. 

Our city parks have not, in many cases, realized their full potential 
as sources of pleasure and play. I recommend on a matching basis a 
series of Federal demonstration projects in city parks to use the best 
thought and action to show how the appearance of these parks can 
better serve the people of our towns and metropolitan areas. 

All of these programs should be operated on the same matching 
formula to avoid unnecessary competition among programs and 
increase the possibility of cooperative effort. I will propose such a 
standard formula. 

In a future message on the cities I will recommend other changes in 
our housing programs designed to strengthen the sense of community 
of which natural beauty is an important component. 

In almost every part of the country citizens are rallying to save 
landmarks of beauty and history. The government must also do its 
share to assist these local efforts which have an important national 
purpose. We will encourage and support the National Trust for 


Historic Preservation in the United States, chartered by Congress in 
1949. I shall propose legislation to authorize supplementary grants 
to help local authorities acquire, develop, and manage private prop- 
erties for such purposes. 

The Registry of National Historic Landmarks is a fine Federal 
program with virtually no Federal cost. I commend its work and 
the new wave of interest it has evoked in historical preservation. 

The Countryside 

Our present system of parks, seashores, and recreation areas 
monuments to the dedication and labor of farsighted men do not 
meet the needs of a growing population. 

The full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund will 
be an important step in making this a Parks-for-America decade. 

I propose to use this fund to acquire lands needed to establish 

Assateague Island National Seashore, Md.-Va. 

Tocks Island National Recreation Area, N.J.-Pa. 

Cape Lookout National Seashore, N.C. 

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, Mich. 

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Ind. 

Oregon Dunes National Seashore, Oreg. 

Great Basin National Park, Nev. 

Guadalupe Mountains National Park, Tex. 

Spruce Knob, Seneca Rocks National Recreation Area, W. Va. 

Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area, Mont.-Wyo. 

Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area, Utah-Wyo. 

Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area, Calif. 

In addition, I have requested the Secretary of the Interior, work- 
ing with interested groups, to conduct a study on the desirability of 
establishing a Redwoods National Park in California. 

I will also recommend that we add prime outdoor recreation areas 
to our national forest system, particularly in the populous East; and 
proceed on schedule with studies required to define and enlarge the 
Wilderness System established by the 88th Congress. We will also 
continue progress on our refuge system for migratory waterfowl. 

Faulty strip and surface mining practices have left ugly scars which 
mar the beauty of the landscape in many of our States. I urge your 
strong support of the nationwide strip and surface mining study pro- 
vided by the Appalachian regional legislation, which will furnish the 


factual basis for a fair and reasonable approach to the correction of 
these past errors. 

I am asking the Secretary of Agriculture to work with State and 
local organizations in developing a cooperative program for improv- 
ing the beauty of the privately owned rural lands which comprise 
three-fourths of the Nation's area. Much can be done within existing 
Department of Agriculture programs without adding to cost. 

The 28 million acres of land presently held and used by our armed 
services is an important part of our public estate. Many thousands 
of these acres will soon become surplus to military needs. Much of 
this land has great potential for outdoor recreation, wildlife, and con- 
servation uses consistent with military requirements. This potential 
must be realized through the fullest application of multiple-use 
principles. To this end I have directed the Secretaries of Defense 
and Interior to conduct a "conservation inventory" of all surplus 


More than any country ours is an automobile society. For most 
Americans the automobile is a principal instrument of transportation, 
work, daily activity, recreation, and pleasure. By making our roads 
highways to the enjoyment of nature and beauty we can greatly 
enrich the lives of nearly all our people in city and countryside alike. 

Our task is twofold. First, to insure that roads themselves are 
not destructive of nature and natural beauty. Second, to make our 
roads ways to recreation and pleasure. 

I have asked the Secretary of Commerce to take a series of steps 
designed to meet this objective. This includes requiring landscaping 
on all Federal interstate primary and urban highways, encouraging 
the construction of rest and recreation areas along highways, and the 
preservation of natural beauty adjacent to highway rights-of-way. 

Our present highway law permits the use of up to 3 percent of all 
Federal-aid funds to be used without matching for the preservation 
of natural beauty. This authority has not been used for the purpose 
intended by Congress. I will take steps, including recommended 
legislation if necessary, to make sure these funds are, in fact, used to 
enhance beauty along our highway system. This will dedicate sub- 
stantial resources to this purpose. 

I will also recommend that a portion of the funds now used for 
secondary roads be set aside in order to provide access to areas of 


rest and recreation and scenic beauty along our Nation's roads, and 
for rerouting or construction of highways for scenic or parkway 

The Recreation Advisory Council is now completing a study of the 
role which scenic roads and parkways should play in meeting our 
highway and recreation needs. After receiving the report, I will make 
appropriate recommendations. 

The authority for the existing program of outdoor advertising con- 
trol expires on June 30, 1965, and its provisions have not been effec- 
tive in achieving the desired goal. Accordingly, I will recommend 
legislation to insure effective control of billboards along our highways. 

In addition, we need urgently to work toward the elimination or 
screening of unsightly, beauty-destroying junkyards and auto grave- 
yards along our highways. To this end, I will also recommend neces- 
sary legislation to achieve effective control, including Federal assist- 
ance in appropriate cases where necessary. 

I hope that, at all levels of government, our planners and builders 
will remember that highway beautification is more than a matter of 
planting trees or setting aside scenic areas. The roads themselves 
must reflect, in location and design, increased respect for the natural 
and social integrity and unity of the landscape and communities 
through which they pass. 


Those who first settled this continent found much to marvel at. 
Nothing was a greater source of wonder and amazement than the 
power and majesty of American rivers. They occupy a central place 
in myth and legend, folklore and literature. 

They were our first highways, and some remain among the most 
important. We have had to control their ravages, harness their 
power, and use their water to help make whole regions prosper. 

Yet even this seemingly indestructible natural resource is in danger. 

Through our pollution control programs we can do much to restore 
our rivers. We will continue to conserve the water and power for 
tomorrow's needs with well-planned reservoirs and power dams. 
But the time has also come to identify and preserve free-flowing 
stretches of our great scenic rivers before growth and development 
make the beauty of the unspoiled waterway a memory. 

To this end I will shortly send to Congress a bill to establish a 
national wild rivers system. 


The Potomac 

The river rich in history and memory which flows by our Nation's 
Capital should serve as a model of scenic and recreation values for 
the entire country. To meet this objective I am asking the Secretary 
of the Interior to review the Potomac River Basin development plan 
now under review by the Chief of Army Engineers, and to work with 
the affected States and local governments, the District of Columbia, 
and interested Federal agencies to prepare a program for my 

A program must be devised which will 

(a) Clean up the river and keep it clean, so it can be used for 
boating, swimming, and fishing; 

( b ) Protect its natural beauties by the acquisition of scenic ease- 
ments, zoning, or other measures; 

( c ) Provide adequate recreational facilities ; and 

(d) Complete the presently authorized George Washington 
Memorial Parkway on both banks. 

I hope action here will stimulate and inspire similar efforts by 
State and local governments on other urban rivers and waterfronts, 
such as the Hudson in New York. They are potentially the greatest 
single source of pleasure for those who live in most of our metropolitan 


The forgotten outdoorsmen of today are those who like to walk, 
hike, ride horseback, or bicycle. For them we must have trails as 
well as highways. Nor should motor vehicles be permitted to tyran- 
nize the more leisurely human traffic. 

Old and young alike can participate. Our doctors recommend 
and encourage such activity for fitness and fun. 

I am requesting, therefore, that the Secretary of the Interior work 
with his colleagues in the Federal Government and with State and 
local leaders and recommend to me a cooperative program to en- 
courage a national system of trails, building up the more than hun- 
dred thousand miles of trails in our national forests and parks. 

There are many new and exciting trail projects underway across 
the land. In Arizona, a county has arranged for miles of irrigation 
canal banks to be used by riders and hikers. In Illinois, an aban- 


doned railroad right-of-way is being developed as a "Prairie Path." 
In Mexico utility rights-of-way are used as public trails. 

As with so much of our quest for beauty and quality, each com- 
munity has opportunities for action. We can and should have an 
abundance of trails for walking, cycling, and horseback riding, in 
and close to our cities. In the back country we need to copy the 
great Appalachian Trail in all parts of America, and to make full 
use of rights-of-way and other public paths. 


One aspect of the advance of civilization is the evolution of respon- 
sibility for disposal of waste. Over many generations society grad- 
ually developed techniques for this purpose. State and local govern- 
ments, landlords and private citizens have been held responsible for 
insuring that sewage and garbage did not menace health or con- 
taminate the environment. 

In the last few decades entire new categories of waste have come 
to plague and menace the American scene. These are the tech- 
nological wastes the byproducts of growth, industry, agriculture, 
and science. We cannot wait for slow evolution over generations to 
deal with them. 

Pollution is growing at a rapid rate. Some pollutants are known 
to be harmful to health, while the effect of others is uncertain and 
unknown. In some cases we can control pollution with a larger 
effort. For other forms of pollution we still do not have effective 
means of control. 

Pollution destroys beauty and menaces health. It cuts down on 
efficiency, reduces property values, and raises taxes. 

The longer we wait to act, the greater the dangers and the larger 
the problem. 

Large-scale pollution of air and waterways is no respecter of 
political boundaries, and its effects extend far beyond those who 
cause it. 

Air pollution is no longer confined to isolated places. This genera- 
tion has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale 
through radioactive materials and a steady increase in carbon dioxide 
from the burning of fossil fuels. Entire regional airsheds, crop plant 
environments, and river basins are heavy with noxious materials. 
Motor vehicles and home heating plants, municipal dumps, and 
factories continually hurl pollutants into the air we breathe. Each 


day almost 50,000 tons of unpleasant, and sometimes poisonous, 
sulfur dioxide are added to the atmosphere, and our automobiles 
produce almost 300,000 tons of other pollutants. 

In Donora, Pa., in 1948, and New York City in 1953, serious 
illness and some deaths were produced by sharp increases in air 
pollution. In New Orleans, epidemic outbreaks of asthmatic attacks 
are associated with air pollutants. Three-fourths of the 8 million 
people in the Los Angeles area are annoyed by severe eye irritation 
much of the year. And our health authorities are increasingly con- 
cerned with the damaging effects of the continual breathing of pol- 
luted air by all our people in every city in the country. 

In addition to its health effects, air pollution creates filth and 
gloom and depreciates property values of entire neighborhoods. The 
White House itself is being dirtied with soot from polluted air. 

Every major river system is now polluted. Waterways that were 
once sources of pleasure and beauty and recreation are forbidden to 
human contact and objectionable to sight and smell. Furthermore, 
this pollution is costly, requiring expensive treatment for drinking 
water and inhibiting the operation and growth of industry. 

In spite of the efforts and many accomplishments of the past, 
water pollution is spreading. And new kinds of problems are being 
added to the old : 

Waterborne viruses, particularly hepatitis, are replacing typhoid 
fever as a significant health hazard. 

Mass deaths of fish have occurred in rivers overburdened with 

Some of our rivers contain chemicals which, in concentrated form, 
produce abnormalities in animals. 

Last summer 2,600 square miles of Lake Erie over a quarter 
of the entire lake were almost without oxygen and unable to sup- 
port life because of algae and plant growths, fed by pollution from 
cities and farms. 

In many older cities storm drains and sanitary sewers are inter- 
connected. As a result, mixtures of storm water and sanitary waste 
overflow during rains and discharge directly into streams, bypassing 
treatment works and causing heavy pollution. 

In addition to our air and water we must, each and every day, 
dispose of a half billion pounds of solid waste. These wastes from 
discarded cans to discarded automobiles litter our country, harbor 


vermin, and menace our health. Inefficient and improper methods 
of disposal increase pollution of our air and streams. 

Almost all these wastes and pollutions are the result of activities 
carried on for the benefit of man. A prime national goal must be 
an environment that is pleasing to the senses and healthy to live in. 

Our Government is already doing much in this field. We have 
made significant progress. But more must be done. 

Federal Government activity 

I am directing the heads of all agencies to improve measures to 
abate pollution by direct agency operation, contracts and coopera- 
tive agreements. Federal procurement practices must make sure 
that the Government equipment uses the most effective techniques 
for controlling pollution. The Administrator of General Services 
has already taken steps to assure that motor vehicles purchased by 
the Federal Government meet minimum standards of exhaust 

Clean water 

Enforcement authority must be strengthened to provide positive 
controls over the discharge of pollutants into our interstate or naviga- 
ble waters. I recommend enactment of legislation to 

Provide, through the setting of effective water quality standards, 
combined with a swift and effective enforcement procedure, a na- 
tional program to prevent water pollution at its source rather than 
attempting to cure pollution after it occurs. 

Increase project grant ceilings and provide additional incentives 
for multimunicipal projects under the waste-treatment facilities con- 
struction program. 

Increase the ceilings for grants to State water pollution control 

Provide a new research and demonstration construction program 
leading to the solution of problems caused by the mixing of storm 
water runoff and sanitary wastes. 

The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare will undertake 
an intensive program to clean up the Nation's most polluted rivers. 
With the cooperation of States and cities using the tools of regula- 
tion, grant, and incentives we can bring the most serious problem 
of river pollution under control. We cannot afford to do less. 

We will work with Canada to develop a pollution control program 
for the Great Lakes and other border waters. 

779-59565 2 


Through an expanded program carried on by the Departments of 
Health, Education, and Welfare and Interior, we will continue to 
seek effective and economical methods for controlling pollution from 
acid mine drainage. 

To improve the quality of our waters will require the fullest co- 
operation of our State and local governments. Working together, 
we can and will preserve and increase one of our most valuable 
national resources clean water. 

Clean air 

The enactment of the Clean Air Act in December of 1963 repre- 
sented a long step forward in our ability to understand and control 
the difficult problem of air pollution. The 1966 budget request of 
$24 million is almost double the amount spent on air pollution pro- 
grams in the year prior to its enactment. 

In addition, the Clean Air Act should be improved to permit the 
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to investigate potential 
air pollution problems before pollution happens, rather than having 
to wait until the damage occurs, as is now the case, and to make 
recommendations leading to the prevention of such pollution. 

One of the principal unchecked sources of air pollution is the auto- 
mobile. I intend to institute discussions with industry officials and 
other interested groups leading to an effective elimination or sub- 
stantial reduction of pollution from liquid-fueled motor vehicles. 

Solid wastes 

Continuing technological progress and improvement in methods 
of manufacture, packaging, and marketing of consumer products 
have resulted in an ever-mounting increase of discarded material. 
We need to seek better solutions to the disposal of these wastes. I 
recommend legislation to 

Assist the States in developing comprehensive programs for some 
forms of solid waste disposal. 

Provide for research and demonstration projects leading to more 
effective methods for disposing of or salvaging solid wastes. 

Launch a concentrated attack on the accumulation of junk cars 
by increasing research in the Department of Interior leading to use 
of metal from scrap cars where promising leads already exist. 


Pesticides may affect living organisms wherever they occur. 


In order that we may better understand the effects of these com- 
pounds, I have included increased funds in the budget for use by 
the Secretaries of Agriculture, Interior, and Health, Education, and 
Welfare to increase their research efforts on pesticides so they can 
give special attention to the flow of pesticides through the environ- 
ment; study the means by which pesticides break down and disappear 
in nature; and to keep a constant check on the level of pesticides 
in our water, air, soil, and food supply. 

I am recommending additional funds for the Secretary of Agricul- 
ture to reduce contamination from toxic chemicals through intensified 
research, regulatory control, and educational programs. 

The Secretary of Agriculture will soon submit legislation to tighten 
control over the manufacture and use of agricultural chemicals, in- 
cluding licensing and factory inspection of manufacturers, clearly 
placing the burden of proof of safety on the proponent of the chemical 
rather than on the Government. 

Research resources 

Our needs for new knowledge and increasing application of exist- 
ing knowledge demand a greater supply of trained manpower and 
research resources. 

A National Center for Environmental Health Sciences is being 
planned as a focal point for health research in this field. In addition, 
the 1966 budget includes funds for the establishment of university 
institutes to conduct research and training in environmental pollution 

Legislation recommended in my message on health has been intro- 
duced to increase Federal support for specialized research facilities of 
a national or regional character. This proposal, aimed at health re- 
search needs generally, would assist in the solution of environmental 
health problems and I urge its passage. 

We need legislation to provide to the Departments of Agriculture 
and Interior authority for grants for research in environmental pollu- 
tion control in their areas of responsibility. I have asked the Secre- 
tary of Interior to submit legislation to eliminate the ceiling on 
pesticide research. 

Other efforts 

In addition to these needed actions, other proposals are under- 
going active study. 


I have directed the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, 
with the appropriate departments, to study the use of economic in- 
centives as a technique to stimulate pollution prevention and abate- 
ment, and to recommend actions or legislation, if needed. 

I have instructed the Director of the Bureau of the Budget and the 
Director of the Office of Science and Technology to explore the ade- 
quacy of the present organization of pollution control and research 

I have also asked the Director of the Office of Science and Tech- 
nology and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget to recommend 
the best way in which the Federal Government may direct efforts 
toward advancing our scientific understanding of natural plant and 
animal communities and their interaction with man and his activities. 

The actions and proposals recommended in this message will take 
us a long way toward immediate reversal of the increase of pollutants 
in our environment. They will also give us time until new basic 
knowledge and trained manpower provide opportunities for more 
dramatic gains in the future. 

White House Conference 

I intend to call a White House Conference on Natural Beauty to 
meet in mid-May of this year. Its chairman will be Mr. Laurance 

It is my hope that this conference will produce new ideas and ap- 
proaches for enhancing the beauty of America. Its scope will not be 
restricted to Federal action. It will look for ways to help and en- 
courage State and local governments, institutions, and private citizens 
in their own efforts. It can serve as a focal point for the large cam- 
paign of public education which is needed to alert Americans to the 
danger to their natural heritage and to the need for action. 

In addition to other subjects which this conference will consider, 
I recommend the following subjects for discussion in depth : 

Automobile junkyards : I am convinced that analysis of the tech- 
nology and economics can help produce a creative solution to this 
vexing problem. The Bureau of Mines of the Interior Department 
can contribute technical advice to the conference, as can the scrap 
industry and the steel industry. 

Underground installation of utility transmission lines: Further 
research is badly needed to enable us to cope with this problem. 


The greatest single force that shapes the American landscape is 
private economic development. Our taxation policies should not 
penalize or discourage conservation and the preservation of beauty. 

Ways in which the Federal Government can, through informa- 
tion and technical assistance, help communities and States in their 
own programs of natural beauty. 

The possibilities of a national tree-planting program carried on 
by government at every level, and private groups and citizens. 


In my 33 years of public life I have seen the American system move 
to conserve the natural and human resources of our land. 

TVA transformed an entire region that was "depressed." The 
rural electrification cooperatives brought electricity to lighten the 
burdens of rural America. We have seen the forests replanted by 
the CCC's, and watched Gifford Pinchot's sustained-yield concept 
take hold on forest lands. 

It is true that we have often been careless with our natural bounty. 
At times we have paid a heavy price for this neglect. But once our 
people were aroused to the danger, we have acted to preserve our 
resources for the enrichment of our country and the enjoyment of 
future generations. 

The beauty of our land is a natural resource. Its preservation 
is linked to the inner prosperity of the human spirit. 

The tradition of our past is equal to today's threat to that beauty. 
Our land will be attractive tomorrow only if we organize for action 
and rebuild and reclaim the beauty we inherited. Our stewardship 
will be judged by the foresight with which we carry out these pro- 
grams. We must rescue our cities and countryside from blight with 
the same purpose and vigor with which, in other areas, we moved to 
save the forests and the soil. 


THE WHITE HOUSE, February 8, 1965. 



9:30 a.m., Monday, May 24 

Mrs. LYNDON B. JOHNSON. Welcome to the White House Con* 
f erence on Natural Beauty. 

We are grateful that you have taken two days of your busy lives 
to come here and discuss ways to restore and increase the beauty 
of our land. 

In the catalogue of ills which afflicts mankind, ugliness and the 
decay of our cities and countryside are high on America's agenda. 

It seems to me that one of the most pressing challenges for the 
individual is the depression and the tension resulting from existence 
in a world which is increasingly less pleasing to the eye. Our peace 
of mind, our emotions, our spirit even our souls are conditioned 
by what our eyes see. 

Ugliness is bitterness. We are all here to try and change that. 
This conference is a step towards the solution and I think a great one. 

Our immediate problem is: How can one best fight ugliness in 
a nation such as ours where there is great freedom of action or 
inaction for every individual and every interest where there is 
virtually no artistic control and where all action must originate 
with the single citizen or group of citizens? 

That is the immediate problem and challenge. Most of the great 
cities and great works of beauty of the past were built by autocratic 
societies. The Caesars built Rome. Paris represents the will of 
the Kings of France and the Empire. Vienna is the handiwork 
of the Hapsburgs, and Florence of the Medici. 

Can a great democratic society generate the concerted drive to 
plan, and having planned, to execute great projects of beauty? 

I not only hope so I am certain that it can. 

All our national history proves that a committed citizenry is 
a mighty force when it bends itself to a determined effort. There 



is a growing feeling in this land today that ugliness has been allowed 
too long, that it is time to say "Enough," and to act. 

During these two days you will discuss and originate plans and 
projects both great and small. Great must be the scope of the major 
projects to redesign our urban areas, renew and brighten the gate- 
ways to our cities, cleanse, set in order and dignify our riverfronts 
and our ports. Small, but equally important perhaps most im- 
portant is the single citizen who plants a tree or tends his own front 
yard. There are 190 million of him. He is everybody. 

Perhaps the most important part of this conference will be to help 
educate our people that the beauty of their land depends upon their 
own initiative and their will. 

I have heard said and many times that among our greatest 
ills is the deep sense of frustration which the individual feels when he 
faces the complex and large problems of our century. Ugliness is not 
that sort of problem. Its vast scope will call for much coordination on 
the highest levels. But and this is the blessing of it it is one prob- 
lem which every man and women and child can attack and contribute 
to defeating. Natural beauty may be a national concern and there 
is much that government can and should do, but it is the individual 
who not only benefits, but who must protect a heritage of beauty 
for future generations. 

There are no autocrats in our land to decree beauty, only a na- 
tional will. Through your work, I firmly believe this national will 
can be given energy and force, and produce a more beautiful 

The Conference Chairman, LAURANCE S. ROCKEFELLER. In cal- 
ling us together, President Johnson set the tone for our endeavor. He 
said: I want new ideas. He said: I want to alert the American 
people to action. He cited concrete, specific problems for us to 
consider not abstractions or theories. 

In accordance with the President's directive, this conference is 
organized for action. It is not for philosophizing. As Mrs. John- 
son said at the first meeting of her committee to beautify Washing- 
ton, "We must not substitute the delight of debate for the art of 

This is not to say that a social and moral basis for natural beauty 
is unnecessary. It is rather to say that we have such a foundation. 

President Johnson has already affirmed it. 

The people of this country, he has said, want not only a bigger 
America but a better and more beautiful America as well. 


He knows they are concerned about the kind of country they are 
building for themselves and their children. 

He knows they are ready to support sound, economical, and imagi- 
native programs to bring about this kind of America. 

In his natural beauty message, the President summed up the chal- 

The beauty of our land is a natural resource. Its preservation is 
linked to the inner prosperity of the human spirit. 

The tradition of our past is equal to today's threat to that beauty. 
Our land will be attractive tomorrow only if we organize for action 
and rebuild and reclaim the beauty we inherited. Our stewardship 
will be judged by the foresight with which we carry out these pro- 
grams. We must rescue our cities and countryside from blight with 
the same purpose and vigor with which, in other areas, we moved to 
save the forests and the soil. 

I suggest that this conference accept this commitment as its theme. 

We propose this sweeping premise not only because of the Presi- 
dent's vision but because the people in the cities and towns across our 
land have made it clear that they want a better environment. Now 
as never before they are ready to work for it. 

In a different sense, beauty is its own justification. As Emerson 
said "If eyes were made for seeing, beauty is its own excuse for 

Most of us would agree. Certainly the President does. His per- 
sonal concern for natural beauty is real and effective. 

Thus, with his leadership and statement of purpose, we have a clear 
national goal. 

Our task is to produce specific ideas and come up with solutions 
that will lead us toward these goals. 

That is why the panel topics we will be considering are not abstrac- 
tions or exercises in theory. They are hard, real issues. In selecting 
these issues, three major areas of concern evolved the city, the 
countryside, and the highways. Under each theme there is a series 
of panels on specific problems. 

We found that the things that needed the most attention were 
those close to people physically as well as emotionally. In seeking 
to translate people's yearning for natural beauty into practical pro- 
grams, the primary challenge is the environment where most people 
live and work our cities and the suburbs and countryside around 


There is a fourth general theme concerned with ways and means 
of doing the job. This includes citizen action, government action, 
and education. 

I personally feel that in the long run education may be one of 
the most important of all. If succeeding generations of Americans 
are to know the meaning and beauty of nature, most of them, un- 
happily, must be taught in classrooms. They must have as much 
opportunity as possible to live and to experience beauty in their 
formal education. 

There are no panels on such elements of beauty as national parks 
and forests or wilderness. They are so obviously important that the 
point need not be belabored. They should have our continuing sup- 
port, but we believe that this conference should concentrate on new 
ideas that have not received as much attention as they should. 

We have also not specifically included water and air pollution con- 
trol. Perhaps no problems are more important to the quality of 
environment and to our general health and well-being, but there are 
established research and action programs in this field. They need 
to be improved but we can affirm our strong support for pollution 
control and move on. 

In choosing panelists, we chose the individual, not the office. 
We sought a cross section of varying points of view. There are 
people from business and labor and the farms. There are interested 
citizens and government officials and conservationists. We are par- 
ticularly pleased that some of the most distinguished members of the 
Congress have agreed to work with us on the panels. We are also 
grateful that several outstanding foreign authorities have come to 
work with us. 

It might also be noted that those in the audience who are not on 
the panels are well qualified to serve. Indeed, most if not all of you 
were nominated to be on them. We want the benefit of your counsel. 
Half of each panel session will be devoted to your questions and 

Tomorrow afternoon we have the unique opportunity to give 
the President some new and important ideas. We can meet this 
challenge only by being bold and imaginative in concept and prac- 
tical and sound in application. 

I am sure that we agree that the following conclusions are basic 
to every panel : 


Yes, more research is needed. 

Yes, better coordination is needed. 

Yes, more money for present programs is needed. 

All are indeed essential, but let's accept that truth and concentrate 
on new ideas. 

This is our charge for the next two days new, practical ideas for 
solving specific problems. 

Now, before we get to work in our panels, I would like to take 
a few minutes to emphasize three points about the urgency and 
importance of what we are doing. 

The first is that natural beauty must be an integral part of our 
national life. It cannot be a frill or afterthought or a luxury subject 
to the red pencil of accountants, public or private. It must be a vital 
part of the way we build our country. 

Over the next 40 years we are going to rebuild this country. We 
will build as many houses as we have since this country was first 
settled. We will build enough offices and factories to create at 
least one and a half million new jobs each year. We will complete 
and expand our network of interstate highways and rebuild our 
system of secondary roads. 

In doing all this, we must provide as much open space and park- 
land as is possible. But the concrete that is poured and the steel 
that is raised will have a far greater effect on our environment than 
the land we can hope to save or restore. 

How we build our factories, how we create our next generation 
of suburbs, how we build our great highway system will determine 
in large measure how beautiful an America we will create for our 
children and grandchildren. 

The second point is that natural beauty is basic to the spiritual 
side of our national life. How we treat our land, how we build 
upon it, how we act toward our air and water will in the long run 
tell what kind of people we really are. 

Conservation, outdoor recreation, physical fitness, and environ- 
mental health are all directly involved. Culture and education are 
as well. 

Natural beauty, in short, is one of the very important expressions 
of national character. 

The perception of beauty, Thoreau said, is a moral test. I sug- 
gest that perception of beauty and action to preserve and create it 
are a fundamental test of a great society. 


The third point is that natural beauty greatly influences the 
quality of the individual lives we lead. 

When Americans turn down the street where they live, there can 
be cleanliness and touches of green no matter how pretentious 
or how humble the home or there can be decay and neglect and 

When Americans arrive at their work, whether it be the White 
House or a mill, there can be touches of beauty or there can be grime 
and dirt and spirit-deadening indifference. 

When Americans drive along our roads and highways, there can 
be pleasing vistas and attractive roadside scenes or there can be end- 
less corridors walled in by neon, junk, and ruined landscape. 

When Americans seek the countryside, there can be pleasing land- 
scapes, healthy air and water and places of beauty or there can be 
a wasteland of gravel pits, overgrown fields, and places of refuse 
rather than refuge. 

These are the choices. For the next 36 hours we in this room 
have a unique opportunity to help direct the choices. 

We cannot solve all the problems of creating a beautiful America 
in these hours, but we can take a big step perhaps many steps 
in that direction. 

Tomorrow we report directly to the President of the United 
States, and we also report to the people of the United States. There 
is every reason to believe that they are eager to follow up on any 

Therefore, let us now go to work. 



9 a.m., Tuesday, May 25 

An open meeting of the Recreation Advisory Council was held as 
part of the White House Conference on Natural Beauty. Council 
members present were the Secretary of the Interior, the Hon. Stewart 
L. Udall; the Secretary of Agriculture and Chairman of the Council, 
the Hon. Orville L. Freeman; the Secretary of Commerce, the Hon. 
John T. Connor; the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, 
the Hon. Anthony J. Celebrezze; the Administrator, Housing and 
Home Finance Agency, the Hon. Robert J. Weaver, and the Chair- 
man of the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Hon. Aubrey J. Wagner. 
Representing the Secretary of Defense was the Assistant Secretary 
for Manpower, the Hon. Norman S. Paul. The Chairman of the 
Council staff, Dr. Edward C. Crafts, Director of the Bureau of Out- 
door Recreation was also present. 

Mr. Freeman presided at the meeting and was introduced by the 
chairman of the conference. Mr. Rockefeller expressed the con- 
ference's appreciation for the Council's participation and thanked its 
members for their help in planning and organizing the conference. 

The Chairman, Secretary FREEMAN. May I say to you that the 
Recreation Advisory Council is pleased to be here. Before the ques- 
tion and answer session I would like briefly to report to you on be- 
half of my fellow members in this Council why it was first estab- 
lished, how it functions, its accomplishments in its first three years 
and its objectives. 

The Recreation Advisory Council was established in response to 
a recommendation made by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Re- 
view Commission. Upon finding that there are approximately 30 
Federal agencies with responsibilities and activities related to outdoor 
recreation, the Commission under the leadership of Laurance S. 



Rockefeller wisely recognized the need to give balance and direc- 
tion to all Federal activities influencing enjoyment of the outdoors, 
and the need to provide for maximum coordination of these activi- 
ties. So it has become the function of the Council to serve as a 
balance wheel, a direction finder, a coordinator. 

Each department represented on the Council has specific, primary 
assignments for which it is responsible to the Congress and the Presi- 
dent. Yet, in carrying out basic missions, each department becomes 
involved in one or more aspects of outdoor recreation and simul- 
taneously natural beauty. 

The Department of Agriculture's primary responsibility rests in 
the agricultural economy and the related consumer protections, yet 
its activities in these areas involve resource conservation and land 
management, watershed protection and tree plantings, and rural de- 
velopment efforts that contribute to expanded outdoor recreation op- 
portunities. Closely associated with recreation and beauty on pub- 
lic lands is the Department's Forest Service, while its Soil Conserva- 
tion Service has a similar role related to private lands. 

The Tennessee Valley Authority is recognized as a source of elec- 
tric power and fertilizers, yet its influence on the recreational re- 
sources and beauty of the landscape in its region is almost beyond 

Access to outdoor recreation and natural beauty are aspects of 
Department of Commerce public roads policy that range far beyond 
the commercial and convenience aspects of highway construction. 

The Department of Defense, through the Army Corps of Engi- 
neers, adds to our recreational resources and influences restoration 
and maintenance of natural beauty through the development of 
reservoirs which have the basic purpose of preventing floods and 
creating electric power. 

The Housing and Home Finance Agency is concerned with the 
environment of housing as well as the quality of homes, and expresses 
this concern in the planning and preservation of open spaces in de- 
velopment areas. 

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, by battling 
pollution of water and air, makes what we see more beautiful and 
what we drink and breathe more pure. 

And no agency of Federal Government is more intimately identi- 
fied with recreation and natural beauty on a day-to-day operating 
basis than the Department of the Interior. 


And so it goes across the entire range of departmental respon- 
sibilities. Each department, while carrying out its primary function, 
has roles related to outdoor recreation and the beauty of our environ- 
ment. These roles, representing an integral part of their ongoing 
programs, are not the type that can be scooped up into a single shovel 
and poured into a new agency of government. 

The idea of creating a Czar of Natural Beauty and Outdoor Life 
has academic attraction but in my judgment is neither practically 
nor politically feasible. Yet, it is obvious that coordinated planning, 
performance, and direction among Federal agencies and between 
Federal and State governments is vital to the immediate and long- 
range goals of this conference and our Nation. 

As a practical matter, we need to find increasingly better means 
through which each department can supplement even acceler- 
ate efforts of the others in the field of beauty and outdoor recrea- 
tion, while at the same time recognizing that each great department 
must respond to its assignments as established by Congress. 

The Recreation Advisory Council was established with that pur- 
pose in mind. Whether it is meeting the purpose, whether it needs 
strengthening in policy and performance, are topics this conference 
may well wish to take under consideration. 

Let us take a look at the record. It contains, I believe, some posi- 
tive and progressive chapters. 

The Recreation Advisory Council has : 

1. Adopted a policy statement calling for the establishment of a 
limited number of National Recreation Areas. Binding upon mem- 
ber agencies, this policy specified criteria for selection of these areas 
and agreed they would be established only by Act of Congress. The 
Council further agreed to consider individual proposals, and to 
recommend appropriate action for establishment, priority, and juris- 
dictional responsibility. 

2. The Council has adopted general policy guidelines for outdoor 
recreation which give high priority to preparation of a nationwide 
plan and cover the Council's views of the roles of Federal, State and 
local governments and the private sector. 

3. The Council has issued a policy statement on the water pollu- 
tion and public health aspects of outdoor recreation. 

4. It has recommended development of a national program for 
scenic roads and parkways. 


The Recreation Advisory Council has served as a useful forum for 
airing and adjusting overlapping and conflicting jurisdictional 

1. In line with a recommendation made by the Bureau of Out- 
door Recreation, the Council was instrumental in bringing about an 
agreement on which of two Federal agencies would administer the 
recreation development of Federal lands surrounding the Allegheny 
Reservoir in western Pennsylvania. This action provides a prece- 
dent for resolving similar situations in the future. 

2. The Council considered and concurred in recommendations 
subsequently made to the President by Secretary Udall and myself 
related to establishment of the Oregon Dunes National Seashore and 
establishment of the Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity and Flaming 
Gorge National Recreation Areas; and our recommendation that 
there be joint examination of Federal lands in the North Cascade 
Mountains in Washington. 

3. The Council also played an important part in implementation 
of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. It has taken three 
actions: (a) It submitted to the President the Executive Order, 
which the President subsequently issued, to permit implementation of 
the Act; (b) It reviewed and concurred in the standards for recrea- 
tion user fees which were subsequently issued by regulation of the 
Secretary of the Interior; and (c) It adopted the standard definition 
of visitor day for reporting recreation use, needed in connection with 
the allocation of funds for Federal projects under the Act. 

4. Further, the Recreation Advisory Council serves as a forum 
where coordination measures can be reviewed before they are made 

In addition, the following achievements merit attention: 

1 . Since the Council's policy statement, Congress has established 
the Lake Mead National Recreation Area and Fire Island National 
Seashore. Establishment of several other national recreation areas 
is pending. Congress is giving appropriate consideration to the cri- 
teria recommended by the Council. 

2. In connection with the Federal Water Project Recreation Act, 
which has passed the Senate and is pending in the House, the House 
Committee Report directs that definitions approved by the Recrea- 
tion Advisory Council shall be followed in determining which areas 
are appropriate for Federal administration under that Act. 

3. The Council's recommendation on development of a national 


program for scenic roads and parkways is now underway in the De- 
partment of Commerce. Completion is expected this summer and 
it will cover criteria for selection, relative priorities, methods of fi- 
nancing and probably legislative proposals. 

The Council now has four important studies in progress, which 
will likely result in policy recommendations. They involve: 

1. Procedures for measuring recreation use on Federal lands. 

2. Recommendations on the role of the private sector in providing 
outdoor recreation. 

3. Non-Federal management of recreational facilities on Federal 
lands and waters. 

4. Land management responsibilities of Federal agencies at Land 
and Water Resources projects. 

Let me conclude with these observations : 

There is a close relationship between the development of outdoor 
recreation resources and the program outlined by President Johnson 
in his Natural Beauty Message. I believe the Executive Order estab- 
lishing the Council gives it implicit duties with respect to natural 
beauty just as it gives explicit duties in outdoor recreation. If there 
is any question on this score, the Executive Order should be clarified. 

Like any advisory group, the Recreation Advisory Council has its 
problems including effective participation by principals, financing, 
staff services, and gaining acceptance and utilization of its recom- 

Too, it must establish good relationships with related councils, 
including the Water Resources Council that would be established 
by pending legislation now in conference after passing both House 
and Senate. 

The Council has under consideration the creation of a Blue Ribbon 
Citizen Advisory Committee. 

The task before us, if for no other reason than it involves vary- 
ing jurisdictions public and private, Federal and State and local 
is monumental. At the same time, it represents a truly inspiring 

Recommendations of this conference and how to increase the 
Council's effectiveness in responding to the challenge will be grate- 
fully received. 

779-595 Qi 


Questions and Discussion 

Panel chairmen were invited to participate at this point in the 
meeting. Limitations of time prevented the entertainment of ques- 
tions from the full conference. 

Mr. GODDARD. You talked very briefly to this point, but to empha- 
size it I would like to ask this question : 

Should not the functions of the Recreation Advisory Council be 
broadened to include natural beauty or quality of environment, 
rather than being confined to outdoor recreation? Would not it be 
advisable to amend the Executive Order to make this responsibility 
with respect to natural beauty explicit rather than implicit? 

Secretary FREEMAN. I think that question was directed to me. 

I believe natural beauty is implicitly involved within the missions 
of the various departments and agencies, and also that it is implicitly 
encompassed in the Executive Order as it now stands. If there is any 
question about that, I think the Executive Order ought to be amended 
to make it very clear. It seems to me outdoor recreation and beauty, 
although not precisely synonymous, are so interrelated that programs 
should be planned with both very much in mind. 

Mr. MOTT. The Recreation Advisory Council has no authority as 
such. It can only promote coordination. Would it not be desirable 
to amend the Executive Order to give the Council authority to im- 
pose its conclusions or recommendations on the various agencies of 
the executive branch? 

Secretary FREEMAN. I think it is extremely doubtful that the 
Congress would assign to any council and take away from operating 
departments the kind of authority implicit in your question. Funda- 
mentally, your question implies the establishment of a new operat- 
ing department a department of recreation and natural beauty 
which would take certain functions from the programs of other de- 
partments and set up a new mechanism to perform these functions. 

The idea might sound good at first blush, but I think it would 
prove quite unworkable in actual practice. 

Secretary UDALL. I would like to comment on this because I 
know that is a question on which there is wide interest. 

I think I would agree generally with what Senator Gaylord Nel- 
son said yesterday. This job of protecting and restoring the quality 


of the American environment, of making it worthy of a country as 
rich and as prosperous as ours, is a very big undertaking. It is one 
that will take probably, in my judgment, closer to two decades than 
one to accomplish and, as he indicated yesterday, many billions of 
dollars wisely spent. 

There may be some who think that the most important thing is 
some trick of organization. It seems to me that we are going to need 
more importantly during that period of a decade or two a President 
who really cares about these things, and I would hope a First Lady, 

I think you are going to need a sense of crusade in the country. 
I think you are going to have to have a change in priority, you are 
going to have to have broad citizen participation and I think we 
sitting here, who run the Federal departments, are going to have to 
be deeply involved and care very deeply about it. I think there is 
going to have to be coordination. I think you are going to have to 
have ready access to the White House, to the President. I think 
that we have this at the present time and I think that what we need 
most of all are the programs and the policies that will implement 
what obviously is a consensus of this conference that a whole wide 
range of new action programs are needed. I don't think any simple 
reorganization that I can think of is going to accomplish nearly as 
much as the implementation of these new programs. 

Mr. WEAVER. I agree with what you have said and what Secretary 
Udall said. I think that the machinery for operating these various 
programs is less important than the fact that there is consultation, 
that there is agreement. I think it is much more effective when this 
cuts across departments and agencies, when men sit down, as we 
have been sitting down, and make policy decisions which we all 
agree are going to be ones that we enforce upon ourselves. 

Finally, I think by the very nature of this government, the heads 
of the departments and agencies have to be responsible to the Con- 
gress as well as to the Nation. I don't think that you can delegate 
the operation of specific programs to any new advisory committee, 
and I am sure Congress would not permit it anyway. 

Mr. WAGNER. I would agree. I would only add that the ques- 
tion seems to imply that beauty is something which can be treated 
in and of itself apart from ongoing programs. It seems to me that 
we will do the job that must be done only as each of the operating 


agencies consciously builds into its activities an awareness of the 
need to create rather than to destroy beauty. 

I recall and I think this is part of the ongoing programs I re- 
call when I first went to the TVA in 1934 the eroding red clay hill- 
sides of the Tennessee Valley were as ugly as they could be. They 
were restored through the fertilizer plant that Secretary Freeman 
mentioned, by revitalizing agriculture, by putting corn lands into 
pasture. And this seems to me to be the way beauty must be 
achieved. It can't be superimposed as a separate thing on the whole 
Nation. It must be built into each of our ongoing programs. 

Senator Muskie made this point yesterday morning very effectively. 

Mr. PAUL. I would like to underline what you said, Mr. Secre- 
tary. For example, in our case, we of course have a primarily 
military mission. But we happen to control 27 million acres of 
lands in this country which I believe, is roughly the size of New 

Any means of dissipating the responsibilities away from the De- 
fense officials, such as a military base commander, would be a very 
bad thing. In fact, I think it would be completely unworkable. 
I wish to underline what you said. 

Secretary CONNOR. A Federal agency, whether it is a council or 
a separate department, can only do so much in a program of this 
kind. So much depends upon local participation, and particularly 
on the authority and programs at the State level. I think, therefore, 
it would be a mistake to try to centralize all the authority in any one 
Federal department. I think that the combination of authority that 
we see among various Federal agencies and also at the State and 
local levels gives us a most effective mechanism for action. 

Secretary FREEMAN. This is not a problem unique to outdoor 
recreation or beauty. 

In the Department of Agriculture, we play a part in implementing 
the programs of many Federal agencies in rural areas. We must 
have maximum coordination to get the job done as effectively as 

So I will say as I have said before the thing to do is to establish 
a goal, and then to keep the attention of people in all echelons within 
each department focused on the importance of cooperation and 


Mr. HAAR. Our question relates to the chairmanship of the Coun- 
cil. We wonder how effective is this revolving chairmanship? 
Would it be a better technique to have a permanent chairman, per- 
haps one appointed by the President directly? 

Secretary FREEMAN. There have only been two chairmen so far. 
I think Secretary Udall was a fine chairman. 

Mr. WEAVER. I think it has worked out very well so far. There 
are advantages in that you get an involvement at the various levels 
of all departments. You have a feeling that this is not somebody 
else's business, because one day you are going to be chairman. I think 
this has operational advantages, and finally, where you are coordi- 
nating as this group attempts to do and coordination is a difficult 
thing administratively I think it is very well to have the coordination 
among people who have equal status rather than coordination by 
somebody who is going to coordinate. 

Secretary CONNOR. Just to amplify that a bit, I think that even a 
short exposure to government indicates to me that when you have an 
interdepartmental coordinating agency, that unless you have a 
rotating chairman, pretty soon the fellow who is the chairman is 
automatically delegated all the authority with respect to that activity 
and this becomes the activity of his department with the other 
departments taking only a peripheral interest in it. Although this 
is still in the experimental stage, it seems to me that the points Mr. 
Weaver made are valid, that if all the departments concerned are 
to be responsible for various aspects of the program it is a good idea 
to thrust the matter of chairmanship on each one in turn for one 
go-around and see how it works. 

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I should say at this point that Secre- 
tary McNamara believes in the rotating chairmanship concept, but it 
is a question of how far it rotates. For example, our feeling at present 
is that the Department of Defense should not chair the Council. We 
would like to remove the Secretary of Defense from the primary bur- 
den of chairing the Council. We feel we should be on the Council 
we have to be. We think that narrowing the potential numbers 
of chairmen is probably a good idea, but we are all in favor of the 
rotating principle. 

Secretary FREEMAN. I might add a personal note that the Council 
might want to consider. I think if the President saw fit to assign the 
top staff person in the field of conservation and natural beauty as the 


Chairman of this Council, that this would have some advantages of 
continuity and a close and intimate relationship with the President. 
I think this proposal may be entitled to some consideration and 
discussion by this conference. 

Mr. WEAVER. The issue here is a dual one. That is, whether or 
not for the first time around, as we are beginning to get organized and 
operating, there isn't some great advantage in the rotation of the 
chairmanship. I would agree with Secretary Freeman that once 
this operation gets underway and is established and some of the rough 
edges are knocked off, a permanent chairmanship might have some 

Mr. BACON. I wanted to pick up on a statement that Mr. Wagner 
made about creating and not destroying beauty. My question is 
addressed to the Council as a body. Do you favor a Federal policy 
for no further expressway construction in city, State, and national 

Secretary FREEMAN. I don't know that anybody can really speak 
for the Council per se in connection with this, because I don't think 
that question has ever been actually presented. We can go down 
the line here. 

Secretary UDALL. Maybe we ought to discuss it. 
Secretary FREEMAN. Do you suggest we do it right now? 

Secretary UDALL. Not right now. As you well know, I am a 
believer in Executive Sessions for controversial topics. 

After the experience that we have had in my department, both 
with the parks, wildlife refuges, and other outdoor recreation areas, 
I would be very glad to take the affirmative on that topic in the 
Council if you want to schedule it for a meeting. 

Secretary CONNOR. Mr. Chairman, I think we should just empha- 
size that this scenic road study which is now underway will be com- 
pleted and ready for recommendations and actions during the course 
of the summer. I think the results of that study will have a very 
important bearing on this question. 

I was glad I was up early enough this morning to read the morn- 
ing paper before coming here and see that my friend Secretary Udall 
has some plans for scenic roads. I happen to have in my pocket a 
little proposal that would get us started on this in a modest way on 


which we hope to get the approval of the President and submit to 
Congress soon. This is a topic that deserves very serious considera- 
tion, not only in this Council, but in Congress and among other 

Mrs. WHITTEMORE. I would like to have discussed the question 
of a citizens' advisory council. 

Would it not be desirable that a small group of leading citizens 
be appointed by the President and could not its functions be to 
bring problems to the attention of the Council, to assist the Council 
in implementing its recommendations, to prod the Council if neces- 
sary, and to make the Council a more active and effective instrument 
reaching out into citizens' groups, keeping them informed and have 
a two-way line of communication? 

Mr. WAGNER. This is a difficult one for me to comment on be- 
cause in the first place, I think it is extremely important that our 
actions do reflect what the citizenry wants. At the same time, I find 
myself a little troubled with the proposal of an advisory council to 
an advisory council. 

It is appropriate to get local prodding and local views and if we 
find we do not have the machinery in our own several organizations 
to obtain them adequately then perhaps an advisory council charged 
with one responsibility and function in this one field would be useful. 
But again, I think this is a question of how many advisories we 
should have. 

Secretary CONNOR. Mr. Chairman, I would strongly favor a 
citizens' advisory council. Particularly because of the importance 
of local and State action in this field, we do need some means of 
having ready access to the views of citizens who are broadly repre- 
sentative in various parts of the country and various groups. I 
think it is a good idea and we should give it consideration.* 

Mr. PAUL. I think the idea of an advisory committee is a very 
good one, but I think we ought to give some consideration to its 

In other words, I don't think it would be useful if it were just 
advisory to the Recreation Council. But if advisory to the Presi- 
dent, it would be worthwhile perhaps in a continuing way on the 

* Secretary Connor at this point left the meeting to attend a Congressional 


whole subject of natural beauty. But just as an advisory committee 
to this Council, I think is too narrow a function. 

Secretary UDALL. I would concur with Secretary Paul. I think 
the really basic question that we face is how does the momentum 
arising out of this conference, out of the new initiative of the Presi- 
dent how do we keep it rolling, rippling outward, gaining mo- 
mentum? It is obvious, if all of you turn in nice reports and go 
home, this will have an effect, but this won't keep the Nation aroused 
as it should be. Because if this is to be a crusade of sorts, I think 
there has to be a constant input of ideas and I think that, therefore, 
there is a very important need for outstanding national leaders to 
be prodding this Council, to be advising the President, to be perform- 
ing both functions. Unless we have in some way or other a continu- 
ation of what is going on here today, it is my feeling that we will have 
lost something that is very important to us right now. 

Secretary FREEMAN. I think that an advisory committee, a rea- 
sonably small one, would be very useful. I think it could create bet- 
ter understanding by individuals, groups, and local governments of 
what the Council does. We sit down and work problems out, and 
we are subject and I choose these words I hope you won't misun- 
derstand to a certain scrutiny in this process. The stubbornness 
that might exist at a given time and place in a given department when 
something ought to be resolved or when there is overlapping, might 
be overcome by just a little extra push, muscle, scrutiny, or outside 
help. Otherwise we may not get over this hurdle of resolving diffi- 
cult problems. In this sense, an advisory group would assume a very 
important role by providing a focus of attention, and by helping 
resolve amicably the difficult questions. Such a group could perform 
a very useful function. 

Mr. WHYTE. There is a great deal of confusion out in the field 
over the rules of the game between the open space program under 
HHFA and the Land and Water Conservation Fund of the Depart- 
ment of the Interior. A lot of people are wondering what the bound- 
aries of each are, who does what, and where. Because of this con- 
fusion a lot of local projects have been grinding to a halt. 

When might there be a clarification on this? 

Secretary UDALL. Mr. Weaver and I have spent several hours 
around tables with other people in the Administration and I think 
we are very close to a resolution of this problem. I don't think any- 


thing should really slow down because the Land and Water Conserva- 
tion Fund doesn't come into operation for a month until the 1st of 
July. We think this offers a big, new assist to the States and we 
hope it will give a whole new rolling momentum to State outdoor 
recreation programs. We hope the open space program is improved 
and we think there ought to be some clean lines of demarcation and 
everyone will understand the objectives of each program. 

Mr. WEAVER. I would agree. I don't think there is any question 
about this. By the time Secretary Udall gets his funds and we get 
additional funds there will be a resolution. There is an agreement in 
the Administration, and I think Congress also reflects an acceptance 
of it that there will be financial parity between the two programs. 
This was really the great problem, one program having one grant 
level and the other another grant level. 

Secondly, I don't think we are going to have complete lines of 
jurisdictional separation, but there will be spheres of influence and 
these in theory I think have been settled. Now we are trying to put 
into language the philosophy which Secretary Udall and I have 
agreed upon. I don't think we are going to have any problem here 
and this will be resolved by the time the money is available. 

Secretary FREEMAN. May I comment on this? This is a sub- 
stantive question and it got a substantive answer. The degree of co- 
operation within this Administration is evidenced by the state- 
ment here that this is being worked out. 

It would be proper, I think, to schedule similar matters before the 
Advisory Council. A comparable question was discussed and re- 
ported on in relation to the Allegheny Reservoir. If the members 
of the operating departments can't resolve some question, then the 
problem should be discussed and reviewed by the Council. 

The Council could give an advisory opinion. This opinion would 
not be binding on the participants, but it might help bring about an 

Senator FARR. This question should have been addressed to Sec- 
retary Connor but perhaps the Chairman or Mr. Crafts can answer it. 

What is the relationship between the highway beautification ef- 
forts of the Highway Research Board, the scenic roads and highway 
study of the Recreation Advisory Council and the new national 
advisory committee to the Secretary of Commerce on highway 


beautification? And is there overlapping and duplication in these 

Mr. GRAFTS. I don't think there is any, Senator Farr. Secretary 
Connor could handle this a lot better than I can. 

As I understand it, the highway beautification program relates 
to the existing ongoing programs of the Department of Commerce 
and the Bureau of Public Roads. The new advisory council that the 
Secretary of Commerce has appointed is concerned with highway 
beautification as related to the Federal-aid highway program. There 
is a relationship between a citizens' group for this somewhat limited 
purpose and a citizens' group that we were talking about a few min- 
utes ago that might be advisory to the President across the board on 
these matters. 

With respect to the scenic road and parkway study, this is being 
chaired by the Department of Commerce, but it is a program-develop- 
ment undertaking that is being carried out for this Council. It will 
be submitted to this Council and presumably in due course to the 
President and probably will require new legislation. 

So I would say there is certainly a very close relationship here, but 
I don't see that there is overlapping or duplication. 

Mr. BRANDWEIN. You spoke of criteria. I was just wondering 
whether any criteria had been developed with regard to redevelop- 
ment which would have concern for some animals or plants that took 
almost three billion years to get here. Is there any way in which biol- 
ogists, ecologists, could work in tandem with engineers to assure these 
criteria might be met? 

Secretary FREEMAN. You are referring now to highway construc- 
tion in this regard? 

Mr. BRANDWEIN. I am referring to any program that wipes out 
areas where there are living things. I should worry generally about 
useless elimination of living things. 

Secretary FREEMAN. Let me say in connection with programs 
within the Department of Agriculture, like the small watershed pro- 
gram, we involve both State and Federal fish and wildlife people 
every step of the way. There are also within the Department of 
Agriculture matching funds available to develop fish and wildlife 
habitat in watershed projects. 


Mr. Crafts, could you answer that question in relation to the high- 
way construction? 

Mr. CRAFTS. Not particularly with respect to highway construc- 
tion, but there is provision in the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
Act, as you know, for the making available of certain portions of 
this fund for the purchase of areas to protect endangered species of 
fish and wildilfe. 

Now, the success of this aspect of that program depends in part 
on some additional substantive legislation which has not yet been 
passed but which is pending within the Administration at the present 

Secretary UDALL. If I may comment. 

It does seem to me that one result of this conference and maybe 
the views of some are a bit too harsh, because I think there is change 
in the air the advocates of the bulldozer approach to development, 
and let's call it the former system of building highways, are very 
much under attack and on the defensive. I think that what we 
are seeing, really, is the entry into this whole process of land-use 
planning and the relationship of people to this over-all environment, 
a whole series of new considerations. The one you mention is an 
important one. 

Another important one is the preservation of all kinds of historic 
landmarks. It is fantastic the destruction that we have done in a 
lot of our new programs in the last few years in terms of destroying 
things that are an important part of our environment and of our 

I think, ten years ago when I first came to Washington, for ex- 
ample, the highway program was in a watertight compartment and 
all of us all of the departments seemed to be looking backwards and 
worked more or less in isolation. I think we are now aware of this 
and that's why we sit here together, our programs are interrelated and 
we have to be sensitive to all these values and try to accommodate 
them within the new programs that are being activated. I think 
this is one of the grounds for hope in this conference. 

Mr. CLAY. Our waterfront panel has been quite disturbed at the 
obvious conflict between the present deep-rooted and single-purpose 
construction practices of many Federal agencies, especially those 
agencies that had to do with water development. 


My question is, what changes are needed to help Federal agencies 
with water control or water resource programs to meet the President's 

Secretary FREEMAN. I think this question might go to Mr. Paul 
because you probably had in mind some of the structures that are 
larger than those with which some of the rest of us are involved. 

Mr. PAUL. This is a serious question that deserves a better answer 
than I am able to give it. This is a matter for the Corps of Engineers, 
of course, in their primary responsibility in the civil functions pro- 

All I can say is that we will bend every effort within our author- 
ities to meet the President's objectives. 

Secretary FREEMAN. May I say that Mr. Paul has evidenced his 
dedication to these principles again and again on the Council, and 
I don't think that there is a better or more sensitive conservationist 
in the country than the Secretary of Defense, Mr. McNamara. I am 
sure they will be most sensitive to this. 

Mr. WAGNER. We build some rather large projects in the Ten- 
nessee Valley, too. 

Someone once said that the major trouble with this country is 
that the Indians had such a poor immigration policy. I suppose that 
really is the cause of this conference. At the same time, it is true 
that we are here, and the resources are here for us to use and I think 
they were put here for man and not vice versa. And as our civiliza- 
tion moves we have turned to using these resources, including the 
rivers. I think they can be so used that they will contribute beauty 
as well as economic strength. When I spoke earlier about citizens' 
advisory councils I had this sort of thing in mind. 

We in TVA have learned as we have gone along we found most 
recently that when a new reservoir is proposed, if you have planning 
machinery in the area State planning commissions, county plan- 
ning commissions, municipal planning commissions it is wise to get 
them together, to plan deliberately and in advance how the reservoir 
shoreline will be used so that, for example, areas which will be needed 
and are suitable for waterfront industry are not preempted, sub- 
divided for cottage sites or other uses whose requirements are less 

This kind of planning with citizens' groups before a reservoir is 
constructed is essential. It permits such groups to plan for construe- 


tion, and to minimize costs by acting ahead of reservoir filling to build 
marinas, to develop park areas and other water's edge facilities. I 
think, Mr. Clay, that this approach is a beginning answer to the 
question that you raised. 

Mr. WEAVER. May I say something? 

I would like very much to urge each one of us here who happens to 
live in a city where you have river banks, to look at your own cities 
and see what we have done to these river banks. I am always 
struck by people who go 30 or 40 miles to get to some water when 
they have it right at home, and have misused it and let it be misused 
to the degree that it has been. Now we have in the pending legisla- 
tion for the Housing and Home Finance Agency a small program to 
assist in the beautification of such areas. But this program isn't 
going to be worth anything unless there are many, many places 
where many, many people decide to do something about what I 
think is one of the greatest abuses of our natural resources right in 
our own backyards. 

Mr. SIMONDS. There are many governmental programs relating 
to the creative planning of our cities, our roads and our countrysides 
that are hard for us in the field to understand and to relate. We 
are wondering, could it be considered a function of your Council to 
prepare and keep current a manual listing these programs and out- 
lining their essential provisions and application? 

Mr. CRAFTS. Some of this has been done. There are several 
publications and lists of various ongoing Federal programs that are 
available. Some of them have been put out by Commerce, Interior, 
and I think Agriculture. 

But what has not been done, if I understood the question, is to 
go into the detail and relationship of one to the other, and give sub- 
stantive information about how they are interrelated. This has not 
been done. 

Secretary FREEMAN. We will look into that. 

Mr. WEAVER. The difficulty is, you can do this under many, many 
headings, and then you get this proliferated out almost ad infinitum. 
If you take it from the point of view of a particular interested opera- 
tion, then you get one catalog. If you take it from another point of 
view, you get another. I am not so sure and not too sanguine that 
you will ever be able to get out all the catalogs. I think it is almost 
a custom job that has to be done. 


Secretary FREEMAN. Will somebody ask the Secretary of Health, 
Education, and Welfare a question this morning? He is getting a 
free ride here. We can have a few from outside. 

Mr. WEAVER. I just wanted to make a general comment and I 
am sure that I speak for my colleagues to this degree that no one on 
this Council desires to promote any Czar of Eeauty. Beauty is a 
very intangible thing. Its ramifications extend far outward and if 
we are to get the Great Society over into the domain of beauty, and 
the creation of what I am sure we all as citizens want, the amount 
of inertia is such that I think some kind of interchange between the 
citizens and government, such as we are having here today, is an 
excellent thing. We should continue it, because otherwise papers 
die on desks. In the beginning of a movement of this sort there is 
so little initiative, so few people in a position to speak, that I think 
here is where education now I am coming around to this point is 
enormously important. As my friend was remarking yesterday, 
beauty is intangible it may exist in the human heart, in the indi- 
vidual, or outside in the landscape. These things are so intercon- 
nected that I think that some constant interchange is enormously im- 
portant in the educational area and it is being neglected to a very 
considerable degree. 

Secretary CELEBREZZE. Let me say that I am a great listener. 
The reason I am a great listener is that, unlike the other Secretaries 
here, I have 260 advisory committees. 

I want to comment on the point of education. Let me preface 
this by saying that the beauty we are discussing was here once, but 
man has destroyed it to a great extent. Now, the question is, how 
do we change human behavior to restore beauty? 

I think that in the educational process we must teach people to 
appreciate things how to live with the better things. What, for 
example, impels a person to tear the slats off of a park bench? If 
we could save the money that we spend in this country to restore 
articles destroyed by vandalism, this amount alone would go a 
long, long way in beautifying in meeting some of the objectives of 
this conference. 

Now, when we speak of the education process in this connection 
when we speak of beauty we must consider that beauty means 
many things to many people. Recreation, too, means many things 
to many people. To a very old person, for example, recreation may 


mean simply sitting on his front porch and rocking and looking at 
the green grass. To others it means traveling long distances, per- 
haps to the national parks. 

My field of endeavor has been primarily in congested cities. I 
was reared in congested cities and I was mayor of a congested city 
for five terms. In such places we must start at the local level 
through your guidance clubs, your recreational councils, your neigh- 
borhood and area councils you have to start at the grassroots, so 
to speak. If anyone thinks that we can concentrate on this problem 
at the Federal level and get it licked, he is just wasting his time. 
Somehow we have to get down to the grassroots level. 

Now I know the cost of vandalism. In my own city of Cleveland 
I could have built 1 extra swimming pools each year for what it cost 
to take care of vandalism. And when you get right down to it, the 
whole problem is one in educating. 

Much of this can be done in the schools. We have underway at 
NIH at the present time some studies in human behavior what 
causes people to do certain things. I think that we are going to have 
to put a great deal of stress on the educational process on teaching 
people to appreciate beauty including the material things that have 
both utilitarian and aesthetic value. 

Not everyone can go to Secretary UdalPs State and see and enjoy 
the wide open spaces. In the congested cities, working along with 
Mr. Weaver, we must create open spaces and parks, we must purify 
our polluted water systems and there again, if we rely solely upon 
the Federal Government to purify our rivers and streams, we are 
going to be greatly disappointed. 

Water pollution and air pollution can be stopped on the local 
level. In many instances it is a political consideration. People 
must be taught that the most precious thing they have is water our 
water supply in this country and that our waterways must not be 

Now this sometimes requires rough action on the part of mayors 
and governors. In the city of Cleveland I had to draw a line on 
housing development in the outskirts of the city because they were 
putting in septic tanks. Fortunately, the large cities in most in- 
stances control the water supplies, so they can say to the suburban 
developers, you will get no water unless you put in proper sewer sys- 
tems and a sewage treatment plant. 


The Federal Government is making grants along these lines. But 
aside from that which the Federal Government does, it is, I think, 
basically a problem of educating the American public on the appre- 
ciation of beauty. And unless we do so, we may come back time 
and time again to conferences such as this, and still solve no problems. 



10:30 a.m., Monday, May 24 

The Chairman, Mr. GODDARD. With your permission I will quote 
very briefly from a report I presented to the North American Wild- 
life and Natural Resources Conference held here several months ago. 

The task of conservation in the years ahead is to convert men from 
a parasite of earth to its steward, not just because we enjoy the beauty 
and bounty of the earth for its own sake, though we do, but because 
the continued existence of civilized man himself is involved. The 
conservation must unite a parasite of earth to its steward the re- 
source sciences with an aesthetic for a new America. We must make 
sure that from here on out, we are running our technology and it is no 
longer running us. Technological know-how must become the chief 
handmaiden for creating and preserving a balanced, healthy, and 
beautiful environment capable of supporting man and his fellow- 
creatures indefinitely. 

The majority of the panels of this great and historic White House 
Conference on Natural Beauty are in my mind technical in nature. 
They will recommend and suggest specifics to accomplish the goals 
you and I are looking for. The great challenge as I see it for our 
Panel on the Federal-State-Local Partnership is to suggest ways of 
getting the job done. 

We have an aroused public interest. We have a sympathetic 
Congress. Conservation and the preservation of natural beauty has 

Members of the Panel on the Federal-State-Local Partnership were 
Ramsey Clark, Robert Edman, Maurice K. Goddard (chairman), 
Luther Gulick, Senator Edmund S. Muskie, Joseph Penfold, and 
Fred Smith. Staff Associate was Norman Beckman. 

779-59565 4 43 


become a potent political force. Its impact is being felt every day 
through the mass communications media and our educational 

We now have important acts of Congress to aid us. We have a 
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. We have a National 
Wilderness Preservation System. We have a wetland acquisitions 
program. The list is almost endless and there are more on the way; 
for example, Senator Muskie's new Water Pollution Control bill, S. 4. 

I am confident that we have or will have the tools as a result of 
this conference. But will we be able to establish effective admin- 
istrative procedures to accomplish the goals we have set for ourselves? 

As I see it this is why we need this panel and the two related 
panels the one on Education and the other on Citizen Action 
which will follow tomorrow. 

Senator MUSKIE. I recall the first piece of advice that the then 
Senator Lyndon Johnson gave me when I came to the Senate. He 
reminded me that when I was talking, I wasn't learning. This is 
good advice to give a freshman Senator and, I suppose, it is good 
advice to give to a Senator at any time. 

I have often thought we could substitute for the filibuster rule 
of the Senate a sort of unwritten rule that many people practice. 
I recall the story of an out-of-Stater who was trying unsuccessfully 
to strike up a conversation with a Maine native and finally, after 
considerable frustration he said in exasperation, "My God, do you 
have a law against talking in this town?" The native said, "No, 
but we sort of got an understanding that we don't say anything that 
doesn't improve on silence." 

I think that's a rule that the Senate might follow. 

And so, undertaking to observe that Maine rule, rather than the 
more liberal filibuster rule of the Senate, I am going to confine myself 
to a relatively few comments. 

We could, of course, if we got into the substantive issues of con- 
servation and beauty, embark upon a long discussion of all of the 
issues which are of concern to us as individuals. But I take it that 
we are concerned here principally with the problem of the mechanics 
of creating and implementing effective public policy on the Federal 
level, State level, and local level in dealing with this new concept of 
conservation which is stimulating and exciting so many Americans. 

We are concerned, of course, with water pollution, air pollution, 
and in these two fields we are, I think, involved in emerging organi- 


zational and policy relationships among the three levels of govern- 
ment which are taking increasing form along constructive lines. 

As we consider this problem of the organizational approaches to 
improving the coordination of Federal agencies or Federal-State- 
local coordination of recreational affairs, I think we ought to recog- 
nize two important points. One, that the operating agencies on the 
State level will vary from State to State and will permeate the entire 
structure of State government. The operating agencies on the Fed- 
eral level also permeate the whole structure of government and will 
vary from those on the State and local government levels. To estab- 
lish a vertical relationship through the Federal system which will 
tie in these variations in operating agencies on the Federal-State- 
local level is a considerable problem, but we ought to avoid getting 
so involved in the organization problem that we overlook what it 
is that we are really trying to do. 

What we are trying to do here is to inject the concept and a feeling 
of urgency about beauty and conservation into existing programs, 
rather than to try to restructure everything that we are doing on the 
State and local and Federal levels in these fields. 

For example, the States vary in their highway programs with re- 
spect to their policies and with respect to the urgency that they feel 
about the impact of highway construction upon the beauty of 
America. And these variations relate not only to billboard control 
and to roadside picnic areas, but to junkyard control and many others. 

Now, I don't think dealing with the problem of beauty as it re- 
lates to highways requires that we restructure our organization for 
building highways, but rather that we find a way to create a new 
sense of urgency and to incorporate into our highway program a 
new concept, a new perspective on its relationship to the landscape in 
our States. 

Carrying this thought further, then, we have got to recognize that 
natural beauty and recreation are really functions of land or water 
use by people in one way or another and that these functions and 
our way of dealing with them in government are spread throughout 
both levels of government and will continue to operate in that way. 

I think the recommendations that we are considering this morning 
for dealing with this problem of natural beauty on the Federal level 
recognize the points that I am trying to make. I think we have 
to recognize that the primary responsibility in this field rests at the 
State and local level, and that it should rest there not only because 
of the concept of States' rights involved as a matter of fact, I 


think we ought to forget about that in this field but because if we 
can get those levels of government operating effectively in this field, 
we will get a better job done than if we were to try to create a Federal 
monolith reaching its tentacles into all aspects of American govern- 
mental life. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I think I risk trespassing upon the 
limitations of my Maine rule if I were to continue. So for a while 
now I will observe a respectful Maine silence and listen. 

Mr. EDMAN. When I was invited to this panel I was asked, if pos- 
sible, to take the role of a devil's advocate. I was told that if in my 
presentation I could arouse the ire of some of the participants, this 
would be a measure of success. 

Accepting an invitation at its face value, I am going to comment 
a little bit about Federal-State-local relationships from the point 
of view of my experience in the Minnesota program. 

A true partnership can exist only if each of the partners is sure 
of its proper role and if he understands what responsibilities his part- 
ners have assumed. Unfortunately, in the field of programing for 
the preservation and development of the natural beauty of this coun- 
try, two of the partners, i.e., the State and local units of government, 
are confused regarding the role of the various Federal agencies. 

We are all aware of the "701" program, "Title VII," "566," Com- 
munity facilities loans, RAD programs, OEDP's, etc. Some of the 
programs require a comprehensive planning approach, some do not. 
Each of the agencies is adopting its own definition of "plans" and 
too many of the agencies seem to gear their requirements to how 
fast they can distribute funds rather than to identify eligible projects 
according to correlated, comprehensive requirements. 

Obviously, some Federal agency must be given this responsibility. 
If this is to be the BOR, it is difficult for many of us to see how this 
can be done unless BOR definitely adopts the comprehensive plan- 
ning approach and is placed in a true coordinating position. The De- 
partment of the Interior would seem to be a questionable location 
for an agency responsibile for complete outdoor recreation and nat- 
ural beauty responsibility. 

The Minnesota State Legislature during 1965 adopted a compre- 
hensive new program of outdoor recreation to supplement the financ- 
ing structure initiated in 1 963. In 1963 Minnesota set aside one cent 
of the cigarette tax to launch an accelerated program of land acquisi- 
tion. At the same time it created the Minnesota Outdoor Recreation 


Resources Commission. During the past two years MORRC took a 
good detailed look at current State, Federal, and local resources pro- 
grams and recommended a complete package of planning, coordina- 
tion, grants-in-aid, and land acquisition. 

Minnesota has come to a number of conclusions regarding develop- 
ment of the natural beauty of the State all of them directly involved 
with Federal-State-local relationships. 

1. Planning for the preservation and development of the natural 
beauty of the State is not a matter for partisan exploitation. It must 
be made abundantly clear to all that it is poor politics to play politics 
with our natural resources. 

2. A program of resources preservation and development must 
look at the complete picture. We must recognize that the conserva- 
tion groups alone are not the only portions of the society interested 
in and responsible for protecting our heritage. We need more 
parks, and forests, and wetlands, and public access, etc. But clean 
water, scenic highways, proper zoning, history, archeology, paleon- 
tology, natural areas, billboard control, etc., are all part of the total 
picture. In many cases in our rush for land acquisition programs, 
we sometimes forget to correlate these needs or give them proper 
priorities in our spending programs. 

3. It is impossible to intelligently plan for development of our 
resources without proper research and planning. Therefore, all 
levels of government must recognize the need for acceleration of our 
topographic mapping, soil surveys, hydrologic studies, river basin 
studies, and comprehensive planning. 

4. You can't do recreation planning in a vacuum. Recreation 
planning must be within the framework of a comprehensive plan- 
ning approach. 

5. Comprehensive planning on every level of government, from 
the Federal down through State planning, regional planning, county 
and local planning, is an essential first step in recognizing the respon- 
sibility of each unit of government involved in protection and de- 
velopment of our natural beauty. 

6. Logically, it follows that acquisition and development pro- 
grams must be accompanied by adequate controls and zoning on 
the State and local level. 

7. It also follows that any and all grant-in-aid programs and loan 
programs must be identified as part of the comprehensive planning 
programs of the various units of government. 


8. It is most disturbing to many of us working on a State and 
local level to find how many various Federal recreational programs 
do not require project identification as part of a comprehensive ap- 
proach. Some of the new Federal highway requirements are a 
step in the right direction. Certainly the Housing and Home Fi- 
nance Agency "Tide VII" approach is sound and should be en- 
couraged. But these are the exceptions. "566" funds for recrea- 
tion are not necessarily correlated with State or county recreational 
plans and neither are game and fish funds. We all know of ARA 
projects and Community Facilities loans for recreation with abso- 
lutely no correlation with the over-all needs of the community. Yes, 
and I realize at this conference that this may be heresy, but too 
many States are rushing their statewide plans to meet BOR require- 
ments, with the prime objective of getting Federal money instead 
of looking at their State-local relationships. 

In Minnesota the legislature has approved a new grant-in-aid pro- 
gram that pays up to 50 percent of the local share of any planning 
program that includes a complete natural beauty program as part 
of the plan. At the same time the State has set in motion a State 
regional planning program. A million dollar grant-in-aid program 
was also initiated paying up to 50 percent of the costs of any recrea- 
tional and natural resource program, including scenic easement, 
archeology, historic sites, etc., that is eligible for Federal funds from 
any of the various programs. Minnesota, however, has said that all 
the projects must be identified as part of a county or regional com- 
prehensive plan approved by the State. This approach seems sound 
to Minnesota and we commend it to our partners on a Federal basis 
for serious consideration. 

Mr. GULICK. As was said here by the chairman and by Senator 
Muskie and by Laurance Rockefeller in the plenary session, 
this roundtable is concerned with ways and means of achieving the 
goals which have been presented to us with such flaming enthusiasm 
in the President's address on this whole subject. 

I come to this as a management engineer, concerned with how 
you organize to accomplish the great dreams that you have set your- 
self, the goals that you have presented, the enthusiasms that you have 
aroused in the American people. Because there is no question about 
it, the President has not only aroused the enthusiasm of many other 
leaders in this country, he has released a desire, alleviating a hunger 
which has been there for years, but which has never had a chance 


to focus effectively on a composite program which would produce 

What you have to do from the management side is to define your 
great goals, then break them down into doable pieces. You have 
to break them down into doable pieces and then you examine the 
existing apparatus of public and private activity to see to what extent 
these various pieces are being carried forward and to what extent 
they are in each other's way, and so forth. 

Now, you follow these two steps, breaking the goals down into 
doable pieces and then examining the existing mechanisms of gov- 
ernment and private enterprise and private orientation to see what is 
being accomplished. Mr. Edman just talked to us about an extraor- 
dinarily effective program which, be it noted, was started four 
years ago step by step, taking advantage of Federal aid and Federal 
help, and of local action and local enthusiasm. The leaders of the 
legislature banded themselves together with the citizens to go to the 
public with a program which, they said, in a very conservative State, 
has produced the most comprehensive pattern of State, regional, 
county, and local planning that we have anywhere in the United 
States. This is the answer of rational men dealing with a great 

And, as he indicated, it is very difficult at the present time for the 
States to work with the Federal Government on this program be- 
cause at so many points the Federal activities are set up on a different 
pattern than are State activities. 

Now, it is inevitable, as the Senator said, that the structure of gov- 
ernmental operations within the States will differ from State to State. 
Our county structures are different. Our habits are different. Our 
conservation practices differ in the different States. Our natural re- 
sources, our natural duties are different. So that the whole thing 
is and should be quite varied. 

The second point that the Senator makes in approaching this 
question of natural beauty and the realization of its values for the 
American people is that we are concerned with two things. One is 
the activities that affect our resources and make it possible for us 
to utilize our natural beauties, developing a quality of administration, 
a quality of planning, which elevates and inspires and creates a new 
perspective. And to this I would add one more, if I may, and 
that is it grows from this idea when I ask you where is natural 
beauty, you are going to tell me it is out yonder. I tell you it 


is inside us. It is in you. It is in your mind and in your heart. 
A beautiful waterfall is beautiful, provided in your youth you were 
taken to picnics by a waterfall and you came to love the beauties 
of nature. 

I am glad we have our special panel on the subject of education 
which will go into all of this. Coming then to this, you've got to 
have a center of strategy. It isn't a problem of coordination. We 
are going to build highways and we are going to purify water and 
we are going to deal with air pollution control and limit advertis- 
ing and put some controls on junkyards. But you've got to have a 
strategy and for that you need machinery at the Federal level, you 
need machinery at the local level, and you need machinery at the 
State level. Even if the internal operating patterns are different, 
they can work together effectively if you create in each major area 
a center of strategy. 

Mr. CLARK. It is most pleasurable to be able to talk on something 
as happy as natural beauty. This is an opportunity lawyers don't 
get too frequently since we are most often concerned with legal 
technicalities, civil rights and crime rates. 

I am here primarily, I assume, because I have spent four years in 
the Lands Division of the Department of Justice and have particular 
experience in that connection that might shed some light on the 
problems that we are considering this morning. 

I should say at the outset that because of the complexities of the 
Federal Government, the Lands Division perspective litigation in 
court in connection with land and related natural resources is not 
ideal from the standpoint of a program of policy consideration. I 
like to think first of the relationship between environment and char- 
acter. It makes me think of an old Norse saying that the North made 
the Viking. I think this has great truth about what concerns us here 
today. Justice William Douglas put it in more colloquial terms when 
he talked about the mountains of Oregon when he said, "Mountains 
make decent men." But he wasn't talking about mountains in 
which strip mining and other ravages of civilization had destroyed 
the natural beauty. 

Government is today the technique available to us for securing 
natural beauty. We can talk about natural beauty and we can have 
and need all the associations and private organizations interested 
in conservation and natural beauty. But when you get 195 million 
Americans and concentrate them in our great metropolitan areas, 


it is clear that government is the instrument and technique of secur- 
ing natural beauty. And this brings us to the first need, in my judg- 
ment, which is coordination and cooperation within and among 
governments in their planning, programing, and execution to secure 
natural beauty. 

Coordination within governments, such as the Federal Government 
itself, is indeed a very difficult problem. I think it is helpful to think 
of Federal land ownership briefly. The United States owns a third 
of all the lands in the 50 States 768 million acres and owns 22 
percent of all the lands in the 48 contiguous States. This is an im- 
mense heritage. It is a heritage that at its height, at the time of the 
purchase of Alaska in 1867, consisted of 80 percent of the land. 

The values of these lands and their related resources are immense. 
The book value of the Federally owned lands and related natural 
resources exceeds the national debt. And in my judgment the fair 
market value of these resources would exceed the national debt by a 
great deal. To illustrate this, the White House, just within a mile of 
here, is carried on the books at $1,000. That's what we paid to ac- 
quire it. If we look into it, it is worth a little bit more than that. 
We are still carrying some millions of acres of Louisiana Purchase at 
3 cents an acre, but fortunately none of us can buy the land from 
the Federal Government at that price. 

I would like to think that this country will devote this remaining 
heritage in the form of a trust for the environmental health and 
beauty of the future. We are talking about 1 2 percent of the oil and 
gas production of the United States on Federal lands. We are talking 
about 25 percent of the timber production, and these are not de- 
veloped to the extent that other resources in the country are. If we 
devoted these resources to the needs of future generations of America 
in terms of environmental health and natural beauty, it would be 
the highest and best use to which these assets can be put. 

In looking at them, though, we have to look at history. We have 
7,000 statutes relating to the use, the regulation, the disposition and 
the acquisition of Federal lands and they go back over a period of 
120 years. Many of them have no relationship to modern needs. 
Fortunately we have just created a Federal Public Land Law Re- 
view Commission. This Commission will engage in a study of all 
the Federal land laws and needs, and natural beauty should be 
among its foremost considerations. 

We need to think in terms of redistribution of Federal landowner- 


ship. We own 45 percent of California and 64 percent of Idaho. 
When you get into the east, this great metropolitan area from here to 
Boston, our land ownership is highly inadequate. 

If we can bring these resources under control through all these 
Federal agencies, for the benefit of our children, we will have an im- 
mense opportunity in the future. If we don't and if we continue the 
depletion and the nonuse and misuse of these Federal lands, we will 
pay a terrible price. 

Today conservation has come into its own. Through joint plan- 
ning and joint effort, Federal, State, and local, we have a great op- 
portunity for improving the natural beauty of this country. 

Mr. PENFOLD. The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Com- 
mission, as a major item of its report, recommended establishment of 
a Recreation Advisory Council to assure application of high stand- 
ards, to achieve full coordination at the Federal level, and to en- 
courage these same goals at State and local levels, including the 
private sector. 

The public is concerned with coordination as it results, or fails to 
result, in high standards of accomplishment, and as it provides or fails 
to provide clear channels through which the public can effectively 
voice its needs and desires, its apprehensions, disappointments, and 
complaints. The public couldn't care less about the mechanics for 
achieving day-by-day accommodations between competing agencies. 
The public mostly sees the lack of meaningful coordination demon- 
strated in very real, down-to-earth situations. One arm of govern- 
ment drains productive wetlands while another develops wetlands for 
the same productive purposes; one arm of government seeks to set 
aside areas for natural beauty and human enjoyment while another 
bulldozes, or chops, or floods its way through precisely such areas. 
There's a long and agonizing list. 

The need for the partnership approach among Federal-State-local 
levels is obvious. But the partnership must be more than just among 
governmental agencies as such. We cannot assume that the vigor 
of an idea or the validity of a complaint will survive the long 
journey from the citizen through the treatment works and filter 
beds of successive layers of bureaucracy. The public in some way 
must participate vitally in the policy determination field at all levels 
and help provide the basis for essential political push. 

There is scant evidence yet that RAC is achieving these goals. 


With these things in mind and to beef up the Federal effort toward 
these goals I offer the following suggestions: 

1. That RAG be given a broader base incorporating natural 
beauty as a prime purpose and responsibility, such to be carried on 
down and throughout the departments and agencies of the Federal 
establishment ; 

2. That RAG be given greater stability and stature in the admin- 
istration by the appointment of a permanent chairman the Vice 
President; and 

3. That the President appoint a Citizens' Advisory Committee, 
representative of the broad interests of the public, to serve the Presi- 
dent and RAG on a continuing basis and to provide a meaningful 
focal point for citizen interest and concern. 

The President's Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, as one 
example, clearly demonstrates this to be an effective device for 
bringing vigorous and well informed public opinion into policy 

The Committee suggested should be small enough so that it can 
meet frequently not only in Washington, but more importantly in 
the States and communities across the Nation where policy, planning, 
and coordination have their real impact on resources and people. 

4. That the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation be taken out of the 
Department of the Interior and be placed as an independent agency 
directly under RAG. 

The Federal Government, through the Land and Water Conserva- 
tion Fund Act especially, is urging the States to undertake thorough- 
going coordination in order to develop truly comprehensive and for- 
ward-looking Statewide and outdoor recreation plans and programs. 
The Federal establishment can do no less. The magnificence of the 
opportunity requires it. 

Mr. SMITH. What I want to do is to take an honest look at some 
of the facts of life that we face in getting this job done. 

I think the first fact of life we have to face is that natural beauty 
is largely a philosophical concept and we never in the world are 
going to legislate it into being. Civil Rights is something of a 
philosophical concept, too, but at least there are some ground rules 
in the Constitution, which doesn't say a word about natural beauty. 
From this we have to conclude that our forefathers didn't realize 
what a mess we were going to make of the place. 

All we have to start with here is great enthusiasm on the part of 


the President and considerable acceptance on the part of the people. 
We have to utilize that, mold it, parlay it, if you please, into some- 
thing with muscle that will make it possible to do this job. That isn't 
much to start with. It is not much to start with, contrasted with 
the other things that the government and the governmental agencies 
all down the line have to do. Their jobs are comparatively simple. 
When I build a road I can set up somebody to do that. This is more 
difficult. This is the first thing. It is kind of amorphous. 

The second fact of life is that we can't set up a line agency in the 
Federal Government to go out and do this job. What actually is 
going to happen is that virtually all departments of government must 
be inveigled somehow into adding a homemade dimension to the 
already complicated job they are already having trouble doing. And 
then somehow or other we have got to infuse our consciousness of 
natural beauty into all the confusion of functions of all the agencies 
of 50 States and well over 100,000 localities. 

This again is a matter of influence. It is influence with muscle 
and this is something new. The third fact of life is that this is essen- 
tially a new role for the Government. Since the Government is going 
to do this, it means the Federal Government. Probably some new 
mechanism will have to be invented to make it work, if it can work. 

So what we have done here now is to try to discover where we 
start inventing. 

The first thing we must have, quite obviously, is something or 
somebody or some groups of somebodies in the Federal Government 
whose chief function is to set policy, create plans, mediate the in- 
numerable problems that are going to develop among the various 
levels of government, among people, among business and conserva- 
tionists. This in itself is a lifetime job to supplement State tech- 
nicians with Federal experience and talent, to promote and encour- 
age State action, and to expedite that action in every possible way. 
Internally, it should promote coordination among various interested 
departments. This suggests that the Federal organization should 
be simple, authoritative, and direct-acting. 

It demands that the key Federal agency, which is the Recreation 
Advisory Council, be uncluttered by departmental bias or interde- 
partmental bureaucratic pressures, because this not only interferes 
with internal coordination, but disturbs Federal-State relationships 
in any comprehensive project. The Council therefore should be 
directly responsible to the Office of the President, and it would be 


desirable if its chairman were not only a Secretary of one of the par- 
ticipating departments. It has been suggested that the Vice Presi- 
dent be its chairman, which in many ways would be highly desirable, 
especially so long as the Vice President has an active interest in 
such matters. 

The Council should expand its responsibilities to cover all phases 
of beautification as well as recreation, and this would mean that 
departments other than those now represented on the Council would 
be increasingly involved. The Council should include such depart- 
ments, even if only on an associate or part-time basis. The Federal 
Power Commission is a case in point; it has literally thousands of 
withdrawals on record for potential power sites, and its power of 
condemnation can be superior to that of the State in which it wishes 
to see something constructed. Whether, where, and how construc- 
tion proceeds can be vital to this program. 

Simplifying Federal procedures also suggests that the BOR might 
become more directly attached to the Council rather than remain as 
a Bureau in a participating department. In an independent position, 
it would find cooperation with all departments of the government 
easier to secure. If the BOR remains essentially a clearinghouse 
and dispenser of funds rather than an operating agency or a coor- 
dinating force that is, if it coordinates by leadership rather than 
directive (and this is inevitable and perhaps desirable) such a 
transfer of responsibility would be thoroughly practical. 

In the interest of expediting activity in the States and within the 
Federal Government, adjusting policies to changing needs, and main- 
taining smooth relationships among the Federal Government, the 
public, Congress and the States, an Advisory Committee to the 
Council should be established by the President, and should periodi- 
cally provide reports to the President as well as advising with and 
reporting to the Council. This Advisory Committee should consist 
of representatives from Congress, of citizens (including businessmen) , 
and of people directly concerned and interested in the problems and 
projects of the States and localities. It is highly unlikely that any 
formula developed at this conference or by Federal agencies will 
be wholly satisfactory over an extended period of time; such a Com- 
mittee could call for adjustments in the procedures of all the con- 
cerned parties until a satisfactory formula is found and whenever 
circumstances require a change, the formula could be changed. In 
other words, the Committee could continuously monitor relationships 
and expedite adjustments. 


Presently established procedures of the BOR, as well as other 
government agencies directly involved in recreation and natural 
beauty, prescribe organizational patterns and procedures which 
States must follow. While it is necessary to have some uniformity 
in State procedures, it must not be forgotten that the ultimate objec- 
tive of the Federal Government is to get the job done, to get it done 
as effectively and as quickly as possible, and to dispense funds where 
and when they are warranted. The States themselves, therefore, 
should have more to say about plans and procedures. 

This suggests that a continuing State advisory group should have 
a hand in working out and expediting procedures. It is conceivable 
that this could be done either by having a permanent State advisory 
group, working in conjunction with the BOR, or by a subcommittee 
of the Advisory Committee. There are assets and liabilities in either 
case which need to be analyzed carefully. 

The relationships of the municipalities to the State and to the 
Federal Government are a matter of concern in this program. It 
might be wise to suggest the establishment of an advisory committee 
within each State, consisting of representatives of 

( 1 ) The State agencies involved ; 

(2) The major cities; 

(3) Typical municipalities; and 

(4) Local representatives of the most directly concerned 
Federal agencies. 

Such committees would not only clarify Federal-State-municipal 
responsibilities and relationships, but would keep the States and 
municipalities aware of the possibilities of Federal participation, 
since many agencies, in addition to the BOR, are directly concerned 
with this problem, and many have funds available for specific types 
of projects. BOR representatives could meet with these committees 
when possible and could thereby keep a firsthand check on progress. 

Because so many Federal agencies are concerned in recreation and 
beautification, and have aids available, the BOR should establish a 
clearinghouse unit to provide information about procedures and all 
departmental aids. In this way, States will be kept aware of all 
of the potential Federal participation and support. Running this 
down now constitutes a major enterprise on the part of any State 
setting out to do it, and the hurdles are many and difficult. Yet the 
States are entitled to all the help and all the support they can get; 
and since the Federal Government is promoting recreation and beau- 


tification, the least it can do is lead the States to places where they 
will get the most help and the most support with the least resistance 
and the least waste. 

Questions and Discussion 

Mr. GODDARD. Having the prerogative of the Chairman, I would 
like to ask Senator Muskie one question because the Senator could 
not be with us yesterday when our panel met informally. In line 
with specific recommendations of Mr. Smith and Mr. Penfold, 
referred to by others, I would like to get the Senator's concurrence 
with this recommendation. 

This recommendation would establish a National Council on Nat- 
ural Beauty and Recreation comparable to the proposed Council on 
the Arts and Humanities. It should supersede the present Recrea- 
tion Advisory Council. The panel recommends a permanent, Pres- 
identially appointed Chairman within the Federal establishment. 
The President should also appoint a Citizens' Advisory Committee on 
Natural Beauty and Recreation which shall advise the new National 
Council on setting priorities for national policy. 

Senator MUSKIE. One thing you ought to bear in mind is that 
you rarely get a yes or a no answer, you know. This proposal seems 
very similar to that which Senator McGovern and several Senators 
are proposing. Senator McGovern's proposal is that there be 
created a Resources and Conservation Council within the Executive 
Office of the President. Your modification of that, I take it, would 
make the Vice President Chairman, and the Council would not 
necessarily be within the Executive Office of the President. 

I think something like this seems to me about as good a way of 
implementing what you are trying to do organizationally as has 
been advanced. I think it might be well to evaluate it in the light 
of what I understand to be some of the thrusts of the discussion this 

One is, I think, the organization which would try to do this the 
organization we are trying to develop here, and I am not speaking 
of one monolith, but the kind of Federal organization about which 
we are talking ought to serve three functions or purposes. One, to 
identify all beauty objectives. And we are talking about beauty 
in the broadest possible way conservation, recreation, scenic, qual- 


ities of life so that we ought to have somebody responsible for 
identifying all of the beauty objectives. 

Now, since these are going to involve conflicting and overlapping 
requirements for land and water, then secondly, we have got to find 
a way organizationally to resolve the conflicts and establish priorities 
in order to make it possible for us to get the wisest possible use 
multiple use, if possible of these land and water resources which 
are in such diminishing supply in the light of the many demands 
made upon them. 

Finally, the organizational structure ought to insure continuity 
and follow-through. The follow-through is terribly important when 
you are talking about something as complex, confusing, and as frus- 
trating as government on the three levels in America in 1965. 

So that getting back to your Council and a Senator has a 
roundabout way of getting to a point getting back to the proposal 
for the Council, I think this is a good starting point for discussion. 
It may well end up as an important element in the recommendations 
of this conference to the President. 

While I am answering, may I touch upon just one or two other 

We are talking about this one concept in which we are all very 
interested the beauty concept, the conservation concept. But 
when we are all through talking, this has got to fit somehow into 
the total functions of government. When it does, it can get lost, as 
so many other worthy causes have been lost. So we have got to 
think about making the entire structure of government more effective 
also. If we are not wise in establishing the organization for this 
particular purpose, we may actually overcomplicate the over-all 
structure of government and do a disservice to our purposes rather 
than to serve them. 

I would like to call your attention to some things that are going 
on and some things that are proposed in this over-all area which 
ought to be of interest to you. 

One, there is in existence the Advisory Commission on Intergov- 
ernmental Relations. Now, this Commission has been working very 
hard, effectively out of the headlines most of the time on the job 
of trying to make the Federal system a more workable and effective 
system. And I think that it has done a good job and I think that 
many of its proposals haven't received the attention and the action 
they ought to. 


One of these proposals is now pending in the Congress and relates 
to something Mr. Edman had to say. This is the so-called Intergov- 
ernmental Cooperation Act of 1965. It does three things. This 
legislation would, one, require Federal administrators who have an 
impact on metropolitan areas to coordinate their efforts; two, to 
require that applications for Federal grants-in-aid which come up 
from this local level be reviewed by the planning agencies; three, 
that periodically we review all grants-in-aid programs to make sure 
that they are serving their original purpose, that they are adapted to 
current conditions rather than the conditions under which they were 
created, to determine whether or not they ought to be continued at 
all, and so on. 

Now, here are three very unspectacular, but very important rec- 
ommendations. I think we ought to bear them in mind as we con- 
sider adding to the total Federal workload, to the total policy load 
of the Federal Government, and not only the Federal Government, 
but the other two levels. As we consider these organizational recom- 
mendations we ought to do so in the context of this total picture. It 
is, I assure you, speaking as one who has worked very closely with it, 
a very difficult, although a fascinating area in which to try to get 
results practical, effective results for the people of the United States 
through this tremendous maze of government. This is a challenge 
and what it produces is exciting. 

Mr. GODDARD. I would like to point out that in our recommen- 
dations we did not say the Vice President. We said a Presiden- 
tially appointed Chairman. We recognize that the Vice President is 
also an extremely busy individual. Someone with authority, we feel, 
should be Chairman. A rotating chairmanship of the group is not 
the best arrangement. 

Mr. SMITH. One comment here. The last sentence in that first 
point says, "The President should also appoint a Citizens' Advisory 
Committee on Natural Beauty and Recreation which shall advise the 
new National Council on setting priorities for national policy." 

I think that is fine. They should help set priorities, but also, I think 
that they can serve a great purpose in expediting action throughout 
the country. I don't think you ought to build a fence around them. 

I believe that this Committee if it is a nationally appointed com- 
mittee, a busy committee can help to continue to get the job done 
and I think it is essential. 

779-59565 5 


JOHN J. LOGUE. My group is concerned with Federal-State-local 
cooperation; namely, with an expressway in our area. My question 
is this. In order to stop this expressway, which is called the Blue 
Route, we have been contacting both the State and Federal govern- 
ments. But our criticisms at the Federal level are always referred 
to the Bureau of Public Roads and at the State level we are always 
referred to the State Highway Department. Not surprisingly we 
get satisfaction from neither of these road-oriented agencies. Now 
in the civil rights area Federal Government contracts are reviewed 
for discrimination against individuals by the Vice President's Com- 
mission. Couldn't we have some kind of review of highway pro- 
posals, both on the State and Federal level, for discrimination against 

In a State like Pennsylvania, could not this be done by the Secre- 
tary of Forests and Waters, and at the Federal level by the Secretary 
of the Interior? 

Mr. GODDARD. There is another panel which is talking directly to 
this, but conceivably this could be one of the functions of the council 
that we propose. 

Senator MUSKIE. I might also put in a pitch for S. 561, the Inter- 
governmental Cooperation Act of 1965, which is aimed at this very 
kind of problem. We have had testimony which has brought in just 
this problem and justification for the approach. It is the purpose of 
that bill to stimulate review not only by directly related agencies, but 
also by other programs. 

RICHARD LEONARD. I have a very brief, but I think excellent 
example of local, State, and Federal cooperation out on the Pacific 

Just a couple of weeks ago we signed contracts to purchase $2.5 
million of redwoods and a superb ocean beach along the Pacific 
Ocean. The State of California is cooperating in that in furnishing 
a half a million dollars. They are also planning additional coopera- 
tion later on in the acquisition program. 

Now President Johnson has approved and recommended a Red- 
wood National Park in the area which requires Federal par- 
ticipation. Since most of the redwoods are pretty much in the State's 
hands at the present time, and need seriously to be augmented with 
additional lands and additional redwoods to make them really su- 
perb, we have to work out cooperation between the two agencies. 


There are possibilities along the lines of excellent cooperation be- 
tween the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture and 
the National Park Service at Cedar Grove area of Kings Canyon 
National Park where the National Park Service has administered 
the Forest Service lands on a very peaceful basis for about 10 or 15 

Another excellent example is the new Ice Age Scientific Research 
in Wisconsin where State parks will be working in a very cooperative 
program with the Federal Government. We are hoping that similar 
cooperation can be worked out in the redwood area and provide 
a superb national park for all the people of the United States. 

CHARLES W. ELIOT II. I would like to make a comment on 
the Senator's point about the other advisory councils being under con- 
sideration. It would be very desirable, it seems to me, to combine 
them all into a single organization. 

The second point, that instead of having them just another in- 
terdepartmental committee, from our 10 year experience with the 
National Planning effort in the 1930's, it is absolutely essential that 
this should be in the Executive Office of the President. 

HENRY WARD. I would like to make this observation and give this 
short background to qualify myself as an expert before I ask a 

I was Commissioner of Conservation for eight years. I was a mem- 
ber of the Water Pollution Commission, and I have been Commis- 
sioner of Highways for five years. 

I was recently arguing with one of my friends in the Federal 
service about the creation of another Federal agency in connection 
with administration. I was arguing that there was a grave danger 
in creating another Federal bureaucracy. He said, "Well, you al- 
ready have a Federal bureaucracy, the Bureau of Public Roads. 
There couldn't be anything worse than that." I said, "Yes, there 
could be; there could be two of them." 

Now, the question that I want to raise is this. This Council that 
you propose to create, would that be advisory advisory to the 
President? Is it going to make recommendations to the President 
which would then be transmitted to Congress for enactment into law, 
or do you propose a Federal administrative agency that would get 
involved in giving directions to the State agencies in all these various 
fields that relate to this whole subject of natural beauty? 


Mr. SMITH. I don't think any of us has any idea of setting up 
another line agency that you would have to deal with. This group, 
whatever it is, if it is a recreation advisory committee, or whatever 
it is, would be advisory an advisory body but we hope it would 
listen to advice. We hope it will advise the Bureau of Public Roads 
rather than you. It would get to the Bureau of Public Roads and 
needle them into considering the beauty aspects of a project. 

Your relationship with the Bureau would remain the same unless 
there is something within your own State that you have to key into 
an over-all plan. But this has nothing to do with the Federal 

Mr. WARD. Let me make the observation; this is really perti- 
nent. You are talking about something, as Mr. Gulick pointed out 
you have to be specific in terms of administration. You have to 
face up to what you need to do. You are going to make a serious 
mistake in approaching this if you are going to set up another Fed- 
eral agency to needle or advise without a clear-cut understanding 
as to authority. 

When you are talking about muscle, I think those of us who 
know something about government look to Congress to determine 
policy, to pass laws. Congress ought to do this. If the Federal Gov- 
ernment is going to spell out specifics in relationship to this whole 
subject of national beauty, this is not a vague thing. Congress ought 
to pass laws that are specific. 

Mr. SMITH. I am trying to say we don't have that authority or any 
of that authority. 

DON HUMMEL. I would like to make a proposal which I think 
ties together some of the objections that have been made by the 
speakers here today. This is not a new proposal. It has been made 

We have a National Security Council made up of the heads of 
various agencies that are responsible for national security in the 
international field. The National Advisory Council should not be 
separate or just advisory. It should be made up of the various de- 
partments that are involved with the development of the facilities in 
the United States. We should have a National Advisory Council 
chaired by the Vice President of the United States responsible to 
the President, made up of the Secretary of the Interior, the 
Secretary of Agriculture, and the head of the Housing Agency. And 


by the way, the big gap here, the thing we are missing is a Depart- 
ment of Urban Affairs and the representation of the people in our 
urban communities. 

If you had a Department of Urban Affairs and a group of cabinet 
officers I am not trying to cover all of them made into a National 
Advisory Council chaired by the Vice President, responsible to the 
President, you would not separate the day-to-day functions. You 
cannot separate day-to-day law enforcement and lawmaking func- 
tions and create beauty any more than a city council can turn over 
to an advisory group recommendations for a plan for your city and 
separate that from the day-to-day function of zoning. It is a day-to- 
day function and should be kept in that area. 

Mrs. PAUL G. GALLAGHER. Last year Mr. Penfold's committee 
sent out information about a directive given by the Bureau of Public 
Roads that any design that goes through parks should be cleared 
with the responsible persons. As you have heard many times this 
has been a major difficulty. 

I would like to know if Senator Muskie, who seems to be aware 
of the ramifications, has heard of any time when the parks won over 
the engineers? 

Senator MUSKIE. I think one of the toughest concepts to put over 
to a highway engineer is to convince him that a road is something 
more than a straight line between two points. 

I will say this, that there has been, I think, small, perhaps too 
small, victories over the straight liners. But in my State, for ex- 
ample, we have finally, over the last ten years made the highway 
department itself conscious of the need for beauty in highway de- 
sign for incorporating picnic areas, for examples. I think that is 
what is needed to be done here. I think Mayor Hummers point 
is very good, to get his new dimension incorporated into the operat- 
ing policies of these agencies. 

I think Mr. Smith made this point that these national councils, 
these national policy proposers or makers, can set the broad guide- 
lines and the great goals. But these goals have got to be converted 
into actual policy for operating agencies. I think this is what we 
must do with our highway departments. We must make them see 
and understand that they must be implementers of beauty themselves 
because to try an alternative way of dealing with it would be to force 
every Commission's policy to be reviewed by some over-all appellate 


agency. I think that's wrong. I think you have got to get this 
beauty concept bred into the agencies and a part of their policy. 

BENJAMIN LINSKY. I appreciate that air pollution has been ruled 
out of the discussions here at this conference. But in the proposal 
for a National Council, this problem of air pollution, I think be- 
comes important especially when health considerations are not pres- 
ent. It is not much good to have a lovely vista to see if you cannot 
really see it because of manmade haze. 

Would your National Council as proposed incorporate the quality 
factor of air pollution control? 

Mr. GODDARD. I would think it would. I note we did not say 
to put the existing Recreation or Advisory Council up under the 
President's jurisdiction, but in a new Council. We want to expand 
it to include the types of endeavors that you are discussing. I would 
say the answer is yes, we would want to include it. 

EDWIN MICHAELIAN. There are 3,043 counties in the United 
States and the county government is one instrument that can be 
used to coordinate the efforts of all local municipalities. In con- 
sidering any program with respect to natural beauty, air pollution, 
water pollution abatement, or whatever it may be, please don't over- 
look the county. It is one of the coming tools that can be used to 
marshal local opinion and get action. 

Mr. GODDARD. The county is included in our recommendations. 

A DELEGATE. I have a suggestion that I would like to make per- 
haps in the area to be worked out between the States. 

I come from a metropolitan area. There is a great deal of natural 
history to be looked at in city areas. The fact is that Americans 
are lazy and haven't been out to Fire Island, where the great 
holly forests are still available and can be seen. What I would 
suggest is this : that there be a series of institutes of advanced study 
such as you have at Princeton, but in the area of conservation and 
natural resources and that one of these centers be set up as a great 
clearinghouse, a center of public relations. The Hudson Valley 
is a site that might be recommended. 

I would suggest that these centers or institutes get together from all 
disciplines teams of scientists, economists, archeologists, historians, 
botanists, biologists, and even artists and poets and put them to 
work in a creative conservation area such as the Hudson River Val- 


ley, say within a hundred-mile radius of New York City. This would, 
of course, extend into Connecticut and parts of Pennsylvania, New 
Jersey, and New York. We have many like this throughout the 
whole United States that have to be worked on and these institutes 
could be put to work. There is a precedent, the Palisades Parks 
Commission, in which two States have cooperated in such a project. 
Institutes likes this could be established all over the United States to 
further explore President Johnson's concept of creative conservation. 

Mr. GODDARD. I think there is one started now. 

Hon. LUCILLE PINKERTON. First, would you please consider some 
kind of model legislation that would help us establish on the State 
level and to assist our municipalities and local governments? I think 
this should come as a suggestion from this panel so that I can better 
represent my people. 

A. K. MORGAN. I would like to suggest to the gentleman from 
the New York-New Jersey Trail Conference that the island he spoke 
of is being seriously considered by this Commission as an addition to 
Bear Mountain. Will he please keep hands off. 

GLESTER HINDS. As I see it, to enhance the beauty the govern- 
ment should enact legislation to remove ugliness. The areas that 
have more than their share of ugliness shall be allocated funds to 
bring them up to the standard of beauty which is expected of that 
particular area. However, that is not the case. There seems to be a 
kind of inertia that prevents governments from moving more rapidly 
to correct these conditions. 

Therefore frustration sets in and ugliness becomes a way of life. 
The government's poverty program is moving in the right direction. 
It should be tailored not to stigmatize any citizen because he or she 
is poor, but should become a motivating factor to improve the stand- 
ard of living of our citizens and thereby stimulate his interest to work 
in the physical beautification of his neighborhood. This investment 
by government will be repaid by decreased costs in the operation of 
many institutions. Rebuild rundown existing neighborhoods 
through construction of new buildings, rehabilitate and conserve old 
buildings, utilize the vest pocket approach to uprooting on a block 
these are the things I am talking about. 

In other words, in blocks where they have good houses and there 
are a few decayed ones, the bad should be uprooted and the good 


buildings maintained. There should be strict enforcement of hous- 
ing laws with a proviso not to put a financial squeeze on the small 
property owners. We need to stimulate more interest in on-the-job 
training for high-paying jobs for older employees in private and 
Federal employment. To stimulate more interest in tree planting 
and better street and building lighting. To stress good character, 
honesty, integrity, good American traditions. To be a good neigh- 
bor. To take pride in self, family and assist in building and main- 
taining a good neighborhood. 

I would suggest someone be appointed on a Federal level to 
direct urban activities in connection with running urban participa- 
tion action programs. 

I think, gentlemen, we have a great stimulus from the President 
and we should not take a negative approach. We should take a 
very positive approach and use of the Office of the President directly 
to focus attention on making America beautiful. 

Mrs. META GRACE KEEBLER. I would like to say that we have 
many wonderful programs already being carried out over the coun- 
try. Having worked with the Department of Agriculture for 11 
years in the States, I am very familiar with the programs that already 
are underway and also with the thousands of other farms and garden 
organizations that are very active and very anxious to help in this 
wonderful program. 

It is the most valuable and marvelous opportunity, I believe, of 
any we have had. I am thrilled over it. Everybody wants to 
enter into it and help in some way. I think that freedom of the 
States to select projects should not be limited. Each State, I believe, 
should be permitted to select the projects it believes are most out- 
standing, as for example, the wonderful new park that has just been 
set up in Alabama called Horse Shoe Bend Park. The Department 
of the Interior is building roads and making it a museum. The 
river there ought to be beautified and there are just thousands of 
ways this could be done. Every project in every State has something 
that farm and garden organizations can enter into. Please, try not 
to limit the power of each State and county, but encourage that. 

Statements Submitted for the Record 

ED DE MARS. One additional point I would like to have con- 
sidered before final recommendations are made: Where the military 
has property along a scenic highway, local or otherwise, they can 


be the key to the success or failure of the entire program. In plan- 
ning their program of improvements, they should also consider the 
scenic values involved. It is therefore respectfully suggested that a 
closer relationship be established between the local agencies and the 
military to better accomplish this desirable end. 

JOSEPH A. DIETRICH. A recommendation of the panel was that 
an organization be set up to be named the "Committee on Natural 
Beauty and Recreation." My opinion and the opinion of others 
I talked with indicate that the interest and success of the conference 
was entirely due to the title assigned to this conference "Confer- 
ence on Natural Beauty." I feel that adding the word "Recreation" 
as part of the proposed new name would deviate from the meaning 
and feelings of those attending and supporting the conference. 

Recreation is supported and encompassed in many of our gov- 
ernmental agencies at present and is associated in the minds of many 
of our citizens as active, rather than passive recreation. I sincerely 
believe that if the word "Recreation" is used in this instance, re- 
actions would be forthcoming from other interests such as those 
concerned with pollution, etc. 

The credit for the conference should be to those who originated 
the theme and, therefore, I recommend that we not pollute the 
original title of "Natural Beauty," but allow it to remain as a mark 
of appreciation to those who conceived the idea. 

MICHAEL R. FAGAN. Much has been said about the value of local 
zoning and/or the intervention of the Federal Government on the 
local level in zoning whenever the local level legislative bodies have 
failed to adequately zone so as to control urban or roadside blight. 
I am diametrically opposed to the intervention of Federal participa- 
tion in local land-use control. The Federal Government is without 
merit in this area, while on the other hand, it could make a valuable 
contribution to achieve the desired end by encouraging the estab- 
lishment or improvement of local land-use control through zoning 
by any one of several methods previously mentioned to the panel. 

While we cannot ignore the responsibility of local government to 
zone nor the absence of adequate land-use control, it is an improper 
conclusion I think that we, the people, would support the introduc- 
tion of the Federal Government into an area historically reserved 
to the local government. 


Mrs. RICHARD B. GRIPPING. Frequent mention has been made 
of the lack of coordination and diversity of aims of the Federal agen- 
cies charged with administering aspects of conservation programs. 
I would like to give two illustrations of overlapping and nondirected 
functions and aims of Federal agencies in the conservation field 
and make a suggestion directed to outdated public land policy in 
the West and the part a ref raming of this policy might play in improv- 
ing intergovernmental cooperation and coordination. 

In Montana, where at least 40 percent of the land is in the public 
domain and where the headwaters of the two major main stem 
rivers rise, historic and current conflicting aims and overlapping 
functions of agencies in the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, and 
Defense become highly visible in the field. While dozens of 
examples are available, two current illustrations of bureaus and 
agencies engaged in jurisdictional disputes and overlooking emphasis 
on the preservation of natural beauty would suffice: 

1. The Bureau of Reclamation proposal for a Sun Butte dam 
on the upper forks of the Sun River represents the first major inva- 
sion and nullification of the Wilderness Act of 1964. The proposals 
have been found impractical, infeasible, or destructive of wildlife 
and the purposes of the Wilderness Act by the Corps of Engineers, 
the Montana Fish and Game Commission, some officials of the Forest 
Service and most local volunteer conservation groups. On the 
other hand, proposals are supported by the local chamber of com- 
merce in the hope that a dam might provide some flood control. 

The proposed dam would inundate or render unusable for wil- 
derness purposes approximately 54,000 acres of the Bob Marshall 
Wilderness area. It would destroy the habitual calving grounds, 
nurseries and migration routes of the Sun River elk herd one of 
the last remaining (although dwindling) major herds in the Nation. 

The arguments used by the Bureau favoring dam construction in 
the Sun Butte area are specious and use the damaging 1964 floods 
on the Sun River as a wedge to find local favor. An irrigation 
dam, which is proposed, cannot, by its nature, contribute significantly 
to spring flood control. In a time of seemingly insoluble farm sur- 
pluses, bringing extra acres under irrigation seems questionable at 
best. The possible benefits from the dam do not weigh well in 
the balance with the initial encroachment of the purposes of the 
Wilderness Act, nor with the Act's philosophy that neither special 
private interests nor government itself should be permitted to despoil 
the few remaining wild areas held in perpetuity for posterity. 


2. The Corps of Engineers' plans for big dam development of 
the upper Missouri between Fort Benton and Fort Peck meet much 
the same objections. This length of the upper Missouri is the last 
200 mile stretch of a main stem river in the continental United 
States that is almost entirely in its natural historic sites, and untouched 
beauty. The proposal of the Corps does not include a need for 
flood control nor irrigation. The power from hydroelectric dams 
is not needed regionally, and the costs of transmission in tying such 
projected power into the midwestern grid are prohibitively high. 
Main local proponents of the proposal are local rural electric co- 
operatives who hope that public power from these sites would be 
less expensive than that produced by the private power company 
in the area. 

Original planning was intended to be a model of interagency 
planning for river basin development. However, when the Corps, 
the Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service, the Soil 
Conservation Service and the Bureau of Land Management (to men- 
tion only a few and not including the State agencies involved ) could 
not agree on the purposes or means of developing the river, the 
Corps bolted from the interagency plans and is singly advocating 
its big dam proposals. 

If the proposed dams are built, much great natural beauty will be 
permanently lost, without compensating benefit to the area or to the 
Nation. The Park Service plans for development of this stretch of 
the Missouri into a Lewis and Clark Wilderness Waterway would 
preserve a uniquely beautiful natural resource in keeping with the 
long-term values held in great importance by the conference in sav- 
ing and restoring portions of the Nation for the recreation, educa- 
tion and inspiration of future generations. 

The suggestion that I wish to include in the proceedings is not an 
original one and is directed toward making it possible for the State 
governments in the great plains and intermountain States to play a 
partnership role in developing beautiful recreational and natural 

If the Federal Government saw fit to return to the States an equi- 
table reimbursement in lieu of taxes for the great amount of Federal 
land in the States, the opportunities for the States to assume a part in 
planning and developing accessible sites of natural beauty would be 
greatly improved. One of the important reasons why State govern- 
ments have been unable to share planning responsibilities, or to ini- 


tiate them, has been the simple unavailability of funds from a small 
tax base to cover anything but the most pressing and fundamental 
responsibilities of the States. 

Presently the bureaus and agencies charged with operating and 
improving public lands do share fees and charges emanating from 
the users of public lands with States and localities. The amounts 
received, however, do not compensate for the reduction in size of tax 
base in those counties and States with high percentages of public 
lands. While agreeing that much of the public land in these areas is 
not very valuable for agricultural or industrial purposes, and could 
not be given away under the Homestead Acts, and that such payment 
in lieu of taxes would represent a direct subsidy to State governments, 
such a payment would seem still to represent a real effort on the part 
of the Federal Government to preserve the principles of shared plan- 
ning and federalism and make it possible for western States to 
accept responsibility for planning and development. 

Dr. DAVID PAYNTER. I was particularly interested in the signifi- 
cant role in the area of Federal, State and local partnership being 
undertaken by the Job Corps of the Office of Economic Opportunity. 

Through the establishment of the Conservation Centers for Job 
Corps youth, we are placing maximum emphasis on reclamation 
and preservation of our natural resources and beauty. We have 
found that the youth joining this program have all too frequently 
been subjected to dull, dreary, and depressing environmental con- 
ditions, and therefore, lack a proper appreciation and understand- 
ing of the importance of their heritage, which may be found in the 
natural resources of our country. 

Therefore, our first effort has been to insure that the Conserva- 
tion Centers counteract prior environmental deficiencies by provid- 
ing attractive, stimulating, and functional housing and recreational 
facilities. We are insisting on good planning and design of facilities 
to insure a proper environment compatible with strict economy. 
The camps are keyed to a well-rounded education with each corps- 
man exposed to reading material stressing the needs and benefits of 
natural beauty and resources. As to practical application, corpsmen, 
through proper guidance and instruction, are charged with the re- 
sponsibility of beautifying their own immediate areas through land- 
scaping and creation of greenbelt areas within each center. 

The program has an interlocking relationship with Federal, State, 
and local authorities each being in harmony with the needs of com- 


munity action programs. On a regional basis, we are already 
programing the conservation corpsman's assistance and support to 
the beautification and restoration of such historic areas as Harper's 
Ferry. We can see a major role for our youth in the Appalachian 
program. As to the individual community, it is reasonable to ex- 
pect that the services and support of corpsmen will be requested, 
particularly as they are able to beautify their centers to the degree 
that they become models of good planning and inexpensive beauti- 
fication. Simply, our primary goal and objective is the development 
of our greatest natural resource; namely, our youth. Our youth, 
in turn, are being redirected to reclaim their natural heritage 
the mountains, forests, meadows, lakes, and streams that greeted 
our forefathers. 

THOMAS B. SATTER WHITE. While the questions relating to 
"Water and Waterfronts," "The Design of the Highway," "Un- 
derground Installation of Utilities," "Automobile Junkyards" and 
other related issues are naturally important, the planning of new 
urban and suburban developments by competent and effectual 
authority dwarfs other considerations by comparison. 

In my own community, Lexington, Ky., there is an excellent test 
tube example of what is taking place throughout the Nation: the 
unnecessary destruction of magnificent natural terrain by snowball- 
ing industrial encroachments and the concomitant housing develop- 
ments. Local resistance to the pressures of these interests has com- 
pletely broken down, or, better put, has about as much chance as 
a colony of beavers attempting to dam the Niagara River. 

There must come from the Federal Government strong assistance 
in some form which can control, plan, and direct the growth of 
the cities in such a way that future America will not be an utterly 
impossible place in which to live. 

The interests involved in exploiting the countryside for their own 
financial gain are so strong that no regulatory entities at the city, 
county, or State levels can possibly oppose them successfully. 

Dr. J. HAROLD SEVERAID. An important need here is for State 
and local governments to so zone, or freeze the price of land, or to 
tax 100 percent on the profits, so as to discourage speculators from 
inflating the value of land in which a higher echelon of govern- 
ment has expressed a real or potential proprietary interest. If lesser 
levels of government fail to do this, Federal laws should be passed 


which would make it mandatory. No one has either a God-given 
or man-given right to profit purely as a result of the accident of 
location rather than his own ingenuity or initiative. Congress 
should freeze the price of land in which it is interested before it 
starts debating whether it will or will not buy it as a national park, 
for example. Short of this, it should itself tax 100 percent on the 
inflated purchase price. 

Another type of legislation needed is that which would put teeth 
into the designation "National Historical Monument." It does little 
good for the government to so designate a house, building, river, 
or site, if it has no power to protect such an object or site from the 
despoilers. An object so honored should be worthy of the full 
protection of government regardless of ownership. 

HAROLD F. WISE. Throughout the conference, constant refer- 
ences were made to the necessity for increased attention to regional 
planning. The report of Mr. Bemiss, chairman of the panel on 
the New Suburbia made particular recommendations to this end. 
Other panelists urged similar action. 

The environment around San Francisco Bay, for example, is a 
single, organic environment, even though it contains nine counties 
and 83 cities, to say nothing of the untold hundreds of special purpose 

The Detroit metropolitan area contains 214 local general purpose 
governments, including six counties. 

This pattern can be repeated over and over again in every metro- 
politan area in the country. 

Individual actions of individual, independent local governments, 
without the identification of common cause or the opportunity for 
common regional action, can only continue the present visual and 
emotional chaos as among local governments so prevalent in our 
metropolitan areas today. 

However, regional planning acting solely in an advisory capacity 
is not enough. Some form of regional decision making machinery 
must be devised if the organic unity that is the region is to be recog- 
nized and have the opportunity to have an effect. 

I have four recommendations to this end : 

1. S. 561, The Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1965, must 
be passed. This is really very mild legislation, calling only for a 
report from a regional planning agency on applications for Federal 
loans and grants in specific programs. This proposed law should 


ultimately be strengthened, in the manner of the Highway Act of 
1962, to make a regional planning and decision making process a 
requirement for any Federal loan or grant assistance. 

Regional planning and decision making should be accomplished 
by a regional agency composed of local city and county elected 
officials, who have direct and personal political responsibility for 
the development and condition of the regional environment. Ad- 
visory citizen planning commissions or committees of planners, 
engineers or other administrative officers cannot make political de- 
cisions, hence, the requirement for representation by elected officials 
of local general governments. 

2. Planning funds should be made available for governmental 
decision making or organizational studies as a part of a comprehen- 
sive regional development planning process. 

3. The establishment of the requirement that all regional de- 
velopment planning financed by section 701 funds (Housing Act) 
include an element of the comprehensive plan on the regional land- 
scape and regional beautification, including a section on the preser- 
vation and use of areas of regional historic significance. 

4. Since local governments are the creation of State governments, 
thought should be given to the requirement of State planning and 
coordination, which would identify and relate the State's interest 
to regional interest, and in turn both to the Federal interest, all as 
a condition to the continued use of the many, many Federal pro- 
grams administered through the States. 

These steps will help the States and the localities to begin the 
long road toward regional decision making and action as the popu- 
lation in metropolitan areas doubles over the decades just ahead. 

JACK WOOD. I wish to suggest the following: 

1. That all States receiving Federal funds under the local plan- 
ning assistance program (sec. 701 of the Housing Act of 1954, 
as amended) be required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive 
State plan for physical development. Provision should be made 
for periodic review and revision, when necessary. 

2. That the States should impose zoning jurisdiction over the 
counties, as in the State of Hawaii. Such zoning jurisdiction should 
be imposed on the counties only to the degree necessary, leaving 
purely local matters to local governments. For example, the State 
could determine the principal uses of land and prescribe regula- 
tions for, say, land to be used for urban purposes, conservation, and 


for agriculture. Once established, as are urban districts, the local 
government would have jurisdiction. Conservation has traditionally 
been basically a State function and should be regulated on a state- 
wide basis. Planning and zoning in the agricultural areas should be 
vested in the county authorities subject to the regulations adopted 
by the State. 

The purpose of the above recommendation is to provide for the 
highest and best use of land, which can only be done on a state- 
wide basis, to assure its retention in that use and to lessen the entre- 
preneural and other pressures on local governments. 



10:30 a.m., Monday, May 24 

The Chairman, Mr. BACON. Those of us who are here together 
are very conscious of the fact that we are in company of an extremely 
distinguished group of people. It is not our objective simply to stand 
here and tell you what ought to be done, but rather, in company 
with you, to prepare as specific and purposeful recommendations as 
we can for discussion with the President tomorrow and, through him, 
with the American people. 

The panel members, in reviewing their task, were impressed and 
concerned about the magnitude of the problem in cities with which 
we are attempting to deal and the inadequacies of the resources and 
manpower that can be brought to bear in connection with it. 

At the same time, I would like to say, as a man who is rooted deeply 
in a local situation, that already the President's Message on Natural 
Beauty and the fact of the holding of this conference are extremely 
powerful stimuli to thinking at the level of the city government. 

Mayor Tate called me to his office in City Hall in Philadelphia on 
Friday and told me that, in addition to the special committee which 
he is in the process of setting up for the explicit purpose of carrying 
into action the concept of the President's message, and in addition to 
the specific program for the planting of trees along the banks of the 
river for the beautification of the part of Philadelphia which is seen 
by everybody, he had decided to ask the Fairmount Park Commission 
immediately to institute a program for the planting of 2,000 street 
trees in the 12 Community Action Council areas of the antipoverty 

Members of the Panel on The Townscape were Edmund Bacon 
(Chairman), Garrett Eckbo, Gordon Gray, Frederick Gutheim, 
Calvin Hamilton, Mrs. Fred Mauntel, William Slayton, and Karel 
Yasko. Staff Associate was David Carlson. 




This program will be carried out only upon application by local 
neighborhood groups who want trees in their particular area. The 
Fairmount Park Commission will establish criteria to determine 
policies on which these trees will be provided for the citizens. This 
explicit, albeit humble, act will assert our concern about improving 
the environment of all parts of the city, including the least privileged. 

This relates to a broad problem of which we are conscious in 
approaching the total question in the city of both the strengths and 
the shortcomings of the urban renewal program as it is now being 

We are concerned because, with the best will in the world, the 
actual products of the urban renewal program up to the present 
moment fall short of the mark. Too much is being spent in too small 
an area and too many of the people who should be receiving the 
benefits of urban renewal are not, because of the highly concen- 
trated aspects of the program at the present time. 

This concept of the immediate improvement of the environment 
on a broad basis by the proposed tree planting program is obviously 
not the whole answer, but it is a step to bridge the gap, to move into 
positive action, to give hope and encouragement to people in all parts 
of the city and particularly in depressed areas. 

There is a kind of phenomenon which I might call the administra- 
tive hardening of the arteries which goes about something like this: 
The local communities become stirred up about a problem as, for 
example, they were with the problem of their blighted areas. They 
make representation to the Congress. There are hearings and Con- 
gress adopts legislation such as the National Housing Act. 

Then the agencies are set up to administer the program and the 
program gets underway. In a massive problem such as this, the 
experience in the field of the local community uncovers the fact that 
the program, as currently administered, fails to meet precisely the 
objectives established for it. Therefore, on the feedback principle, 
which is the basis of all scientific thought and all automation, there 
should be a constant review, reevaluation, change in the policies in 
which the Federal program is readjusted so that it more and more 
nearly meets the reality of the problem in this field. 

The horrible phenomenon is that the cities, the communities, and 
the local agencies applying for funds to the Federal Government, are 
so afraid of offending the Federal people and therefore not getting 
money, that there is great reluctance to suggest any revisions. This 


is one of the phenomena which we must take into account. We, in 
Philadelphia, are deeply resolved that we will, in cooperation with 
the Federal Government, see to it that the benefits of urban renewal 
and of the city beautification programs are more widely dispersed 
throughout all parts of the city needing them than they are at the 

I feel very strongly, and the panel backs me in this, that the urban 
beautification section of title VIII of the housing program now before 
the Congress can become a very important instrument for the accom- 
plishment of this objective, and this panel urges that this legislation 
be adopted in the form in which it is presently before the Congress 
and that it be supported by adequate funds and that it be admin- 
istered in a very creative fashion. 

In Philadelphia over the last several years we have developed the 
concept that we will move into the most depressed areas of the city ; 
that we will establish in the center of these areas oases of beauty 
parks and squares next to beloved monuments and landmarks which 
will serve as rallying points for neighborhood pride and identification 
and, in the process, identification with the city as a whole. 

Our first effort in this regard, our greenway in the Southwest 
Temple area, had a magnificent plan which centered on a small civic 
square, but the budget of the Housing Authority was such that our 
park was paved with blacktop and had only a few, poor little locust 
trees on it. 

I believe profoundly that if this title VIII of the Housing and 
Community Development Act of 1965, providing for urban beauti- 
fication, is administered in a creative fashion, not to extend the pro- 
gram but to intensify and develop real quality, real beauty, real in- 
spiration in the projects which are already underway in the cities, 
that we can lift this kind of thing up to the level of excitement; take 
it up over the hump so that it does stir people. 

Our next great effort was in Society Hill in Philadelphia. Here, 
with the full support of the Federal agencies and the city, we created 
great beauty in this section of middle- and upper-income families. It 
is a matter of great importance to me that when this Society Hill 
project was visited by groups from the most depressed areas of the 
city, they did not respond with jealousy or resentment. It was exactly 
the opposite. They said, "This is great." They were proud that this 
was in their city and they said they wanted this in their neighborhood 


So we are going into our third greenway, a system of garden 
footpaths threaded through the Mill Greek area, so that the children 
can go to school and the mothers can go to shop along this con- 
tinuous tree-lined footway, suddenly made possible by the fact of the 
collapse of an old sewer. 

Just before I left, I reviewed the plans of this with Robert Craw- 
ford, Commissioner of Recreation. He has a fine architect, but the 
budget is only allowing for blacktop. 

I tell you in definite civic terms that if this urban beautification part 
of title VIII can be brought to bear in this project, right in the 
middle of this depressed neighborhood and, instead of blacktop, the 
walk can have some handsome stone paving, decent trees that will 
make a fine effect, sculpture, fountains, something to be proud of, 
we will have made an impact on the very basic question of the loss 
of morale and the discouragement and loss of hope among our less 
privileged citizens. By a dispersal of this kind of program, distributed 
throughout the entire area as a source of inspiration, a positive asser- 
tion of beauty, we can create new centers of identification and new 
centers of relationship with the city as a whole and we will have estab- 
lished the fact that the Great Society is for everybody. 

Mr. GRAY. Townscapes of tomorrow must have character and 
beauty rooted in nature and built upon those man-made resources 
accumulated throughout the year. My burden is that it makes no 
sense to destroy the best of what we already have while working to 
create an environment that will give inspiration to our people. 

Organized concern for our tangible heritage began in 1859 when 
ladies from every State purchased and saved Mount Vernon. 
Through a limited but dedicated number of individuals and organiza- 
tions linked together through The National Trust for Historic Preser- 
vation this concern of thinking Americans has spread across the 
United States. Initially the focus was on the homes of the great 
and the places where political and military history were made. 
Now, landmarks of beauty, good design and neighborhood character 
are also being recognized and are assuming their places of importance 
in the townscape. 

The success of these efforts, like the number of people involved, 
has been too limited. There have been too few leaders, too few 
dollars, and far too many great buildings and places destroyed or 


The citizen oriented battles to save a great Federal building in St. 
Louis, a historical park in New Jersey, a Victorian Mansion in Iowa, 
indicate that now is the time when leadership can do what must be 
done. President Johnson has provided the inspiration and suggested 
the method. 

Renewed public awareness of the problems of a rootless, ugly 
America augers well. Basic is the need to know what exists and 
what is worth keeping. Once identified, sympathetic means of 
ownership must be established. 

New and imaginative uses must be devised for the worthy structures 
that are to be found in almost any city. 

A broad educational program dwarfing current efforts is manda- 
tory. This must be conceived to generate wide public participation. 
It must infiltrate the collective consciousness of every public and 
private agency to bring into focus an obligation to the citizenry for 
an attractive environment. 

As part of the creative endeavor for monuments of tomorrow, this 
awareness must be so indelibly marked on the subconsciousness of 
each individual and agency that its necessity is accepted and de- 
manded as categorically as safety and cleanliness. 

The National Trust stands ready actively to participate in this 
total effort and to work toward an acceptable future urban environ- 
ment of quality, distinction and continuing individuality in the de- 
veloping society and history of America. As the only private non- 
profit organization chartered by the Congress to labor in the land- 
mark vineyard, it accepts its enlarging obligations. 

Let me suggest a few specifics variously involving government at 
all levels as well as private organizations and citizens. 

Let us have a national survey to inventory landmarks of all types 
and grades of historic, architectural and unique community value. 
Certify these with accompanying legal protection for those so cer- 
tified. We should continue to develop and protect historic districts 
in our urban areas. Compensation should be paid to private owners 
for losses incurred in preserving certified landmarks. Other devices 
should include tax relief (inheritance, income, personal and corpo- 
rate, property, admissions) and scenic easements. Restraining cov- 
enants should be placed on historic properties; and an increasing 
number of them should be brought into public ownership. The 
FHA bank loan system should be revised. Zoning ordinances need 
strengthening. Machinery to veto government expenditures which 


would result in destroying landmarks is essential; and I know of no 
government agency with money to spend which has not been destruc- 
tive in this way. 

State and local governments should be assisted by State and Fed- 
eral loans or matching grants. Eminent domain should be evoked for 
protection rather than destruction. Favorable governmental ad- 
ministrative policies should be codified and enacted into legislation. 
Better communication and coordination should be established within 
branches of the Federal Government and with private groups. Fed- 
eral support and assistance should be given the National Trust as 
recommended by the President in his Message on Natural Beauty 
and unanimously approved by its Board of Trustees. A program is 
needed to guide adaptive uses, and to stimulate private philanthropy. 

It makes no sense to destroy the existing good, in favor of what 
may be spurious. 

Mrs. MAUNTEL. We Americans are becoming more and more 
aware of the fact that our cities and towns must be beautiful as well 
as useful. 

Through the efforts of the President and Mrs. Johnson, an awak- 
ened citizenry has been made conscious of the need for making beauty 
a very vital part of our daily living. 

We have come to realize that we must create for ourselves and for 
our children a better environment in which to live, and we are now 
prepared to crusade vigorously for order and neatness as well as for 
charm and beauty in our land. 

It is, therefore, important that all those things which add a clut- 
tered look to the townscape such as stop signs, bus signs, street 
markers, and so forth, should be placed in a desirable and orderly 
manner and should be of good design. 

Utility wires should go underground, light fixtures should be 
designed with beauty of appearance in mind. Even fire hydrants 
and trash containers enter into the over-all picture and can be built 
with eye appeal. 

As a real lift to the townscape, tree planting programs should be 
carried on in all our towns and cities. On Signal Mountain in Ten- 
nessee, as a result of a quarter of a century of planting, hundreds and 
hundreds and hundreds of dogwood trees were recently at the peak 
of their blooming period. They envelop the city in a cloud of 
creamy white blossoms. And I have seen redbud plantings in an 
Oklahoma community lifting the community from the drab monot- 


ony of a prairie town to the heights of real beauty. Not only the 
planting of trees should be stressed, but flowers also, for color in the 

Recently, a New York woman urged the planting of masses of 
flowers where masses of people passed. She was instrumental in the 
planting of flowers right down the center of Park Avenue. It was 
she who said that flowers to a city are like lipstick to a woman they 
just need that touch of color. 

Do not underestimate the touch of color to the townscape. Land- 
scape design schools and civic development conferences, trained na- 
tional councils, State garden club members should be leaders in 
community beautification projects. Such informed persons then 
serve intelligently as members of park boards, highway commissions, 
schoolground committees and the like. 

Industry can contribute in a financial way through grants to 
garden clubs to help establish parks and greenbelts and for planting 
projects of all kinds. Industry has a major effect on what this 
country looks like. So industry should be encouraged to help. 
Perhaps the internal revenue structure could be revised to see what 
changes could be made to give greater incentive to industry in its 
efforts to help improve the quality of the environment. 

Through junior garden programs, youngsters are taught to garden 
and are trained to appreciate the beauties of the world about them. 
Many city children today have no chance to experience natural 
beauty. Through education and appreciation of beauty, beauty is 
brought about. This is necessary if we expect the next generation 
of Americans to support the programs that we are now planning 

Mr. Rockefeller mentioned this in his talk this morning. The 
teacher should be better trained to bring a knowledge and an aware- 
ness of beauty to the youth of this country. Much more could be 
done to emphasize an appreciation of natural beauty, good urban 
design, and the preservation of our historical assets. 

Educating our children not only to be aware of beauty, but also 
to appreciate beauty is one of the finest investments that we can 
make in the future of America. The Federal Government should 
help educate the public, not only the very young, but the older 
citizens, too. 

There was a 90-year-old gentleman of my community who was 
made aware of a blossoming tree and this led to other observations in 


nature. He said to me with a bit of sadness in his voice that he was 
sorry that he never knew until he grew old that the world was so 

The National Council of State Garden Clubs plans to set up con- 
servation conferences and workshops in the next two years, the 
first held at Jackson Hole, Wyo., from September 3 to September 8. 
The theme chosen is "Natural Beauty: The Follow-through." At 
this meeting, suggestions and recommendations coming out of this 
White House Conference on Natural Beauty are to be studied and 
discussed. We are so pleased that Mrs. Lyndon Johnson will be 
one of the conference speakers. 

By actually following through with beautification projects, we 
hope to play a vital part in the great crusade of this present genera- 
tion to help bring about the flowering of America. 

Mr. HAMILTON. What is the image of beauty a city should have? 

Those of you who are planners are aware of the work of Kevin 
Lynch on the factors of what he calls the image-ability of a city. 
Then there is Mr. Lewis' work in Wisconsin in identifying resources 
and Mr. Bacon's own work in Philadelphia. In Pittsburgh we 
tackled what we called the image of Pittsburgh. What we were try- 
ing to do was to identify, through an effective inventory, the concept 
of what that city is today, analyze its strengths and its weaknesses, its 
principal factors of beauty, its topography and the historic buildings 
that should be protected. We attempted to develop an over-all 
conceptual arrangement which could be implemented specifically 
by the improvement or revision of public policies and ordinances. 

It seems to me, in looking at this question of beauty in a city, we 
need think not only in terms of our individual elements, but of the 
way they fit together. For example, one of the great strengths of 
Pittsburgh is the fact that there are many ethnic groups that created 
communities with beautiful churches. These churches and some of 
the housing of the individuals have unique qualities. In zoning pol- 
icies, in the building code and in urban renewal such strengths should 
be built upon so that the city, in fact, maintains its unique qualities. 

In Los Angeles, we do not have quite as many unique areas and 
yet we are nevertheless attempting to formulate policies which are 
aimed at developing beauty through local action. For instance, when 
someone wants a rezoning he must form, with his neighbors, a sort 
of special assessment district, and as a requirement for putting in a 


new street or improving the street and street lights, he must also, for 
example, pay for the putting in of the street trees. 

The kind of protection which Mr. Gray pointed out as so im- 
portant in saving our heritage can actually be implemented through 
policies of a city's capital budgeting process, through changes and 
modification in the quality and arrangement and design of subdivi- 
sions through local ordinances, through urban renewal policies and 
public housing projects and other planning or house development 
and through changes in the building code. 

We should examine most critically the key relationships between 
freeways, streets, and the total environment. The essentials of good 
design in creating excellence in urban forms and particularly vehic- 
ular ways, must be identified and followed. These include : 

Good proportion : Too many engineering structures in this coun- 
try are bulky and poorly designed. 

Harmony of the road to its environment : Unfortunately, the en- 
gineers do not really concern themselves with the relation of the 
road or street to the environment. Adding a little more land to the 
acquisition or being much more careful in its gradient can make a 
road infinitely more beautiful. 

The symmetry of the road relative to beautiful views: Look at 
the contrast between the New York Thruway and the New Jersey 
Turnpike. Focal points should be strengthened by the orientation 
of the road. Structures and grading should be either in contrast 
or in harmony; so many big highways and city streets build great and 
ugly retaining walls. Adjacent areas should be integrated into the 
roadway design so that we really have an effective development. 

It seems to me at the city level, the county level, and the State 
level, through public policy changes, new ordinances and selling our 
councilmen and our legislatures, we can begin to implement specific 
policies of this kind. 

Mr. YASKO. "Townscape" is a relatively new word in the vocabu- 
lary of design, but I expect that after this White House conference 
it will be a common word. 

The design of a townscape must recognize the specific needs and 
qualities that make one place different from another. One of the 
most meaningful pleasures in a city is to encounter the shockful con- 
trast between two contiguous places of different patterns and shapes, 
a contrast which was not artificially supplied through a science of 
town planning, but through genuine developments which contributed 


to the city's formation, developments which were largely social and 
economic in nature. 

Just as there must be good manners in buildings and in the relation- 
ship of these buildings to the environment, so should good manners 
be exercised in relating people to the area in which they live. We 
should not impose patterns upon people which are so unfamiliar 
as to make them unhappy. Nor must the monotony of endless, repeti- 
tive forms be imposed upon them, destroying the diversity of a city 
area which developed out of the social character of those who formed 

Go home and look around you. See what community forms 
exist, what ethnic groups, and look at the economic situation. Unless 
something is done now not tomorrow or next year, but now the 
character so essential to the vitality of a city will be obscured and ero- 
sion will set in. Let us maintain the contrasting patterns and shapes 
of our cities and preserve their landmarks, historic and otherwise. 

Let us also begin to police the decay in our city areas and side 
streets. Rows of trees and plantings cannot hide the rotting areas 
and the beginning of slums; we must remember that leaves fall in 
winter and that the gray, cold days will reveal the grime and decay 
hidden during the summer. 

Mr. ECKBO. There is a series of steps which I think we will have 
to go through in order to develop a positive program of townscape 
development or urban design. 

First, we must recognize that the quality of the environment is 
an important subject. It should be given front rank attention. It 
has not had very much of this until now. 

When we speak of natural beauty and townscape we are really 
talking about the total landscape, including all its structural elements. 
The work of man is a part of nature. Beauty is something that 
results from the relationship between the observer and scene and 
is not something that is simply part of the scene. In other words, the 
observer participates in creating the experience. 

I think the basic elements that mostly establish the quality of our 
urban scene are the series of relationships between buildings and 
open spaces, and pedestrians and open spaces. Of course, as you 
know, the buildings and the motor vehicles tend to take over and 
the pedestrians get crowded out. That is really the central design 
problem in all our cities. 


Quality today can only be produced by the full use of the conscious 
design process. This is more than a planning process; although it 
includes planning, it also involves positive, creative action. It is 
essential that the design process be invoked at the beginning and not 
come after many decisions have been made. It must encompass 
the total area under consideration and must be involved with the 
continuity of space and time. 

We have to concentrate on the autonomy and responsibility of the 
designer. The city has to become a client of good design. We are 
going to have to remove a lot of arbitrary, negative restrictions which 
limit the design process on the theory that it is not reliable. Stand- 
ards, codes, rules and regulations are essentially efforts to bypass 
design. Instead of these, we must obtain competent personnel to 
perform design and require them to police themselves in a respon- 
sible way. 

We must realize that quality in the townscape is more than func- 
tional, utilitarian, scientific, or rational. It is also poetic, lyric, 
romantic, classic, subjective, intuitive all those words that are so 
hard for practical people to live with. 

Trees are a measure of urban culture and liveability. Their re- 
quirements are similar to the requirements of people, in light, air, and 
space. But you cannot salvage an urban environment by squeezing 
trees into it. The trees have to be an integral part of the original 
planning, which is something we rarely see. 

If you look at general education in America you will find a lot 
of material on the quality and quantity of the social environment 
and on the quantity but not the quality of the physical environ- 
ment. Yet, taste and interest in the quality of the environment is an 
acquired factor. We are not born with it and we cannot expect the 
American public to become good clients of urban design unless 
material is introduced at all levels of their education to help them 
develop this interest. 

I think, finally, that we need in all urban areas what might be 
called a community development agency, which might be a new 
body or might develop from a municipal planning body. This would 
be concerned in a positive way with all elements in the local land- 
scape, not in a fragmentary way as, for instance, redevelopment 
agencies are. It would be concerned with the future rather than 
the past, although not neglecting the best of what now exists. 


Mr. SLAYTON. I have noticed there has been no hesitation at all 
on the part of local officials to come to me and suggest revisions in the 
urban renewal program, and I have noticed no timidity at all arising 
out of any worry about offending Federal officials. 

Let me say I do have a worry about offending them. 

I would like to pick up where Mr. Eckbo left off and talk basically 
about the city organization which is necessary to carry out a beauti- 
fication program. We can sit here and talk all day, but unless there 
is an adequate government mechanism to carry out our plans, we 
will not realize them. 

Mr. Eckbo has suggested some kind of development commission. 
This is an excellent suggestion and I would like to expand on it. 

First, you have to have a local citizenry which is really interested 
and really pushing their local officials very hard to get something 
done. You must then have the public officials themselves. As Mr. 
Eckbo said, they are clients ; they are the ones who make the decisions 
on what is is going to be built, how it is going to be built, and what 
its design will be. It is important that they understand the im- 
portance of beautification and of good design. We need education 
for public officials as well as for the public at large. 

But public officials and the citizenry are not enough ; we must have 
the professional, who understands design the landscape architect 
and the architect. As employees retained by the public officials, they 
are the ones to come in and prepare the designs we are talking about. 

With public officials, the citizenry and the professional, there must 
be developed a really positive program for improving the townscape 
and improving urban design. It seems to me that such a program 
must have three subprograms; I will skip through them very briefly. 

First, each city has to have an urban design plan, something like 
Charles Blessing is trying to prepare and is preparing in Detroit. 
L'Enf ant had a design ; Burnham had a design plan for Chicago and 
I guess Mr. Hamilton is going to get a design approach plan in for 
his city. 

In addition to a design, it seems to me, a city has to have an urban 
beautification program. It cannot just say it would like to have 
urban beautification, it must have a program laid out calling for the 
specific things it wants in order to achieve beautification. 

You know we have a housing act coming up which has been re- 
ported out favorably by the House committee, which calls for urban 
beautification in the open space land program. I think there is 
hardly a city in the United States today that is geared up to begin 


to spend that money except for Mr. Bacon here who wants to plant 
those 2,000 trees. He will accept that in a minute. 

We have to have urban beautification programs that talk about 
plans for tree planting and the creation of the plazas and the build- 
ing of fountains and the building of the malls and the restoration of 
river fronts and waterfronts. No city really has this now. This 
kind of an over-all beautification plan has to come out of the city 
planning commissions. It cannot be a hit-or-miss proposition. It 
really has to be a comprehensive approach to this problem. 

Finally, the third prong of this program is the community develop- 
ment organization. There has to be some organization that is con- 
cerned with coordinating the things that are done within an urban 

We have example after example of what I call sibling strife among 
departments in a city where each department designs its own signs 
and its own lamp posts. These are then jumbled together (I guess 
"assembled" is a better word) with no relation to the over-all design. 

We have to design areas as a unit, and there has to be an organiza- 
tion within the local government that has the authority to see that 
these areas are actually designed, not just assembled. 

In summary, it seems to me that the city, the town, the urban 
county has to have a three-pronged positive program, an urban de- 
sign plan, an urban beautification program, and some kind of local 
organization that really will see that these areas are designed. 

Mr. GUTHEIM. We have met in recognition of the unsatisfac- 
tory appearance of American cities. They are today the homes of 
most Americans, and here will be raised and formed the future 
generations that will make our civilization. Our concern must be 
to create urban environments for the Great Society. 

Too many American cities look alike. To this monotony we must 
add the large scale of our cities. This standardization and imper- 
sonality of scale is largely a product of industrial circumstances which 
we have not yet tamed and redirected to humane ends. Until such 
redirection is accomplished, the quality of our cities will not only 
continue to destroy their visual character but their social character 
as well. 

Before turning to the practical steps to improve the appearance of 
our cities, let us acknowledge that the basic conditions of urban life 
in the United States today prevent any sentimental return to the 
simpler patterns of earlier days. We must start with big industrial 


cities and make them fit to live in. The American city has a 
spacious quality and at best incorporates a natural framework and 
landscape pattern that runs into almost every block. This pattern 
of warp and woof, of buildings and nature, is most decisively ex- 
pressed in shade trees. These are not only the ornament of our 
streets, public squares, and parks, but run through all open areas of 
cities. The planting of large shade trees must become a paramount 
objective of all those who would improve the appearance of cities, 
and it is the main hope for any early redemption of the lost character 
of American cities. A prompt start should be made to improve and 
coordinate the technical processes of large scale, mass moving of big 
trees, and to reduce the costs of such operations. 

At the metropolitan scale, big trees establish the natural framework 
of cities, like rivers, and hills, and carry it into each street and open 
space. But the design of those most intimate and intensively used 
areas must succeed in coordinating all elements of these decisive 
features. Urban design today is frustrated by the divided respon- 
sibility for trees and park planting, the design of streets and side- 
walks, paving, public and private buildings, shopfronts and signs, 
lamp posts and mailboxes, litter baskets and light fixtures all the 
fine grain of street furniture that goes into these public living rooms. 
To introduce a kiosk or a bus shelter is to add to this chaos, not to 
clarify it. 

Streets and public open spaces of special character demand a kind 
of systematic and continuous design coordination that will come only 
from a design center established for this purpose. Recognizing the 
human scale and more careful detail of townscape, a design center 
should work with architects, landscape architects, planners, indus- 
trial and interior designers with all who are able to contribute to 
townscape design. It should work to express the needs and co- 
ordinate the demands of all Federal, State, and local government 
agencies which post signs, specify materials and fixtures, determine 
spaces and relationships and uses. It should work with manufac- 
turers of lighting equipment, fireplugs, paving systems, baskets with 
all whose products hope to be used in these areas of cities. Design 
coordination is the object, and without it our cities will be a vast col- 
lection of separate items, a junk pile in the course of creation rather 
than the unified and beautiful areas we seek. 

The creation of such a design center, a public, nonprofit institu- 
tion of imagination and flexibility, should be undertaken by the great 


professional societies of urban environmental designers which should 
safeguard its public character and high aims. Working with them 
should be the public agencies whose operations would be made more 
efficient and economical as well as more purposeful, and the many 
industries and firms which contribute to the creation of the urban 
environment. The Federal Government can assist such an effort 
with grants and specific support for its activities and educational 
program. The Highway Research Board is an example of such 

Questions and Discussion 

Mr. BACON. Mr. Gutheim's proposal for a central national design 
center in which our best designers work with the manufacturers that 
produce the objects in our townscape also raises the question of coor- 
dination at the local level. Here, we must deal with the street de- 
partment, the State highway department, and a multitude of other 
agencies. This, I think, goes back to the suggestion which Mr. Slay- 
ton made to develop a local unit of government to work on this 
coordination, including the question of signs. The panel felt that 
it would be very desirable to institute a Federal program with Fed- 
eral assistance with funds being made available to stimulate and aid 
the local work that would have to be done to receive and effectively 
apply the products of Mr. Gutheim's national design center. 

Mr. SLAYTON. You have had that assistance for beautification 
over the past. 

Mr. BACON. This is outside urban renewal areas. 
Mr. SLAYTON. It relates to any urban renewal area. 

Mr. BACON. If you administer it that wav and the cities can 
respond, perhaps we can achieve what you are driving at. 

AARON LEVINE. I think the problem before us might be oversimpli- 
fied by the analogy of the lipstick. Natural beauty might be applied 
just as a cosmetic. The point that Mr. Slayton made goes to the 
heart of the matter. 

It is somewhat conspicuous that we have attention to the prob- 
lem at the Federal level, whereas the policies that will really carry 
it out are at the local level. It is our local city councils and zoning 
boards of appeal who must decide the highest and best use of the 
land which, in turn, affects natural beauty. 


I speak as one who just came from a very difficult problem affect- 
ing the slopes of Diamond Head Crater in Hawaii. High-rise apart- 
ment buildings are being urged as the highest and best use of the 
land. I think that the problem is how we can best convince local 
officials that the policies for preserving natural beauty have long 
range as well as immediate importance. 

MARVIN B. BURNING. We citizens will have to do the con- 
vincing at the bottom level. However, I think we just have not 
the full scale of the problem in mind unless we also involve Fed- 
eral agencies to take a look at the over-all effects of the various 
Federal programs. 

The President is talking about rebuilding America in 40 years. 
Only a massive, an over-all dedicated attack under Federal leader- 
ship can meet that kind of a challenge, and to do that, we propose, 
some of us from Seattle, that legislation be enacted to make it a 
precondition of all of the Federal assistance programs affecting the 
urban environment that there be developed by the local community 
an integrated plan for guiding the growth of that community. This 
plan would include action programs affecting air and water, utility 
lines underground, highway design, billboard control, scenic ease- 
ments, urban design plans, rapid mass transit, sign controls, and 
building parking and open spaces. 

I think if you cannot get the money without pulling yourself to- 
gether there will be some incentive to pull yourself together. 

Mr. SLAYTON. To pick up your phrase, put it all together, it spells 
help. This kind of an approach is one that has to be thought out very 
carefully in terms of where you are going to do the most good. 
You can have a requirement of that nature, very stringent, just as 
you outlined it, and it will not produce anything in the way of 
encouragement to cities to rebuild, to have good design, to plan 
for orderly growth, so forth and so on. 

We do, at the present time, have Federal incentives. We have 
requirements and Federal incentives to get cities to do certain 
things, requirements in terms of local programs and urban renewal. 
We also have a planning assistance program which is aimed to assist 
cities and metropolitan areas to plan themselves in a very orderly way. 
The things you have described are eligible expenditures under this 

It is just the old question of the carrot and the stick and how you 
produce the best results. 


WILLIAM SGHEICK. I was glad to hear the comment that the pro- 
fessional societies should take some leadership in this. 

The American Institute of Architects is going to strike out on its 
own this year with a war on community ugliness through our 158 
chapters. We have made a movie which we hope many people 
will see. Mrs. Mauntel, we would like your garden clubs to be sure 
and see it. 

We think it is most important in public education to put the 
tools for action into the hands of local people. There must be 
a complete understanding and a knowledge of local regulations 
and ordinances and other things which make action possible. We 
have been surveying the country in order to bring these together. 

We find a great hodgepodge and it will be quite a job, I believe, 
to put these regulations together into a kind of manual or guidebook 
which will enable citizen action groups to undertake the job and 
carry it on themselves. 

We have talked about this as a research program for Urban 
America, Inc. I see Mr. Hammer and Mr. Fagan in this room. I 
hope they will take this on and help our campaign in this way. 

GLENN THOMPSON. I wish to register a concern about the agree- 
ment among the panel on the need for urban design. I am suspicious 
of this. It sounds more like the great curse of urban renewal where 
the curse is, it seems to me, that a plan is designed from the drawing 
boards and then it is imposed upon the city. It doesn't seem to me 
there is nearly enough in our discussion of what the city itself wants 
to be. 

I warn us against trying to play the role of designing a good char- 
acter for a delinquent boy. If he doesn't want to be as good as 
we expect him to be, he is not very likely to be so good. 

Mr. SLAYTON. I am surprised at you because it is the people of 
Dayton who decide what is going to happen in Dayton in urban re- 
newal. It is the city council that adopts the plan. It is the city that 
adopts the plan. 

What have you been doing in Dayton to see that they adopt the 
plan that you say ought to be adopted? We don't say it. You say 

ARTHUR J. HOLST. I think we have gotten some mileage out of 
some money we have spent, and I would like to share our experience 
with you without suggesting we have all the answers. 

779-59565 7 


Mrs. Johnson pointed out this morning in her marvelous talk 
that the nice thing about this problem is that each individual 
can do something about it. In fact, that is the way it must be 
if we are going to plan intelligently for urban renewal, city beau- 
tification, or anything else. 

In some of our cities in the Midwest, it is a problem of know- 
ing what is good because we have been so long without beauty. 
There are generations that have not seen it. We felt that some 
of the wisest expenditures we could make would be to use money 
to send people in positions of authority landscape architects, for 
example, folks from the Peoria City Beautiful Association, from labor, 
management and men in public life to see good things around this 
country and in foreign countries. 

One of the practical results of this has come about because one 
of the members of this trip was the chairman of the Public Build- 
ing Commission which was building a new courthouse. The County 
Board of Supervisors were drumming the tub to use two-thirds 
of the area left beyond the building for parking. 

We hope that if any of you come to Peoria in the next year you 
will stop and see a beautiful landscaped courthouse with night- 
lighted fountains the direct result of some of these expenditures 
to let people see things so that they know quality when they see 

I think setting up a nonprofit corporation to send people who 
will make decisions at the local level out to expand their own 
horizons is one definitive action which can be taken. 

HAROLD SCHICK. Mr. Bacon mentioned planting 2,000 trees. We 
will be doing the planting, I assume. This is news to me. We will be 
with you, and just to carry the point further, Mrs. Mauntel said we 
hope to have a little perfume in our plantings and put some flow- 
ers in the downtown area. We think we can extend this planting 
into the downtown area with some help when our budget comes 
up for review. 

NATHANIEL O WINGS. I have had the privilege of working with 
Mrs. Johnson to beautify the Capital City. It is a good example and 
should go on the record as a case where through grass roots action, 
with no Federal or District financial support, enormous strides have 
been taken. 

I would recommend that this type of operation be put into action 
in every city and every town in the United States. 


It is always a lot of fun to get together where everybody agrees 
and talks to each other, but in all of our city we have a hard core, 
probably 90 percent of the citizens who are either apathetic or against 
what we call beauty. 

We think beauty is almost a respectable word yet it still isn't in 
a good many areas of our city, and I am talking of the private enter- 
prise level. 

My recommendation for the record is that such a conference as this 
with similar panels be directed toward the financial community of 
the United States. If you think about it a minute, the great financial 
organizations such as the insurance companies literally decide the fate 
of most of the private building that is done in the United States of 
America. They are the ones that should be talked to and they are 
the ones that have got to be convinced that beauty is a financially 
sound investment. 

I would like to recommend to the President that GSA be given the 
power to select single architectural firms of high quality in each city 
where they do any building so that their building can be a catalytic 
agent for the beauty and growth of the entire community. 

I would like to recommend that landscaping be given the same 
dignity as architecture in the evaluation of all work in all cities. 

EDWARD STONE. Mrs. Johnson this morning said the search for a 
more beautiful environment must originate with the individual. 
This prompts me to say the following. 

Obviously, the greatest common denominator in our environment 
is the individual dwelling. 

I am afraid that, in this country, we have an Anglo-Saxon heri- 
tage. Our forefathers, Washington, Jefferson, were in effect emu- 
lating the English country squire on his large acreage. Granted 
that Mount Vernon and Monticello are very poetic episodes but 
now, the spectacle of Mount Vernons and Monticellos are observed 
on 50-by 100-foot lots. If our ancestors had come from the Con- 
tinent, from France, Italy, or Spain we would have quite a dif- 
ferent set of standards. 

Anyone who has motored through France has seen that villages 
are built compactly and permanently, wall to wall, with privacy 
obtained in cloistered gardens at the rear. They have seen the hill- 
top towns of Italy built in the same way. In Spain you see houses 
built around cloistered patios which has its origin back as far as 
Pompeii where there were the traditional atrium and courtyard. 


Houses were wall to wall and built of permanent materials which 
means the countryside is preserved. In other words, a compact 
village and open country. 

I do not want to talk too long, but let me talk for a second or 
two more. You are all familiar, if you fly over the cities of this coun- 
try, with these millions and millions of little worthless, expedient, 
wooden boxes all placed on dangerous roadways involving extended 
utility lines and complete loss of that precious commodity of privacy. 
You reach the point where you can shake hands with your neigh- 
bor out of the window. 

This is all wrong, needless to say. How can we plan cities like 
that? Take the city of Bath, England, which is, in effect, a city 
where you see great monumental crescents in open countryside, 
but which are really row houses of a high order. 

Now, row housing is a dirty word, but it makes so much sense. 
Unfortunately, our row housing was all done as an economic 

My question is how can we change this pattern? I have talked, 
for instance, to large developers, Mr. Levitt on the east coast and 
Mr. Eichler on the west coast and all wish to change this pat- 
tern. Granted, a single-family dwelling is a mass-produced thing 
like a Ford automobile, but even the developers are willing to re- 
tool and change. 

How, may I ask, can we stop and change the pattern of the 
single-family dwelling? 

I grant you this is like being against God, mother, and country, 
but it is all wrong. 

PATRICK HORSBRUGH. Under the terms of townscape may 
I make the special plea for the need to study the social and thera- 
peutic values of water and for the ecological and local climatic ef- 
fects of water and for the visual and economic benefits of ex- 
posed water. 

Much has been said in favor of foliage. More needs to be said 
on the study, value and vitality of water in conditions of high popu- 
lation pressures. 

WALTER REUTHER. I had the privilege of hearing President John- 
son's inspiring address at the University of Michigan when he 
called upon Americans to join in the building of the "Great So- 
ciety." I was most impressed when he said, "As members of that 


Great Society, we would need to be more concerned with the qual- 
ity of our goals than the quantity of our goods." That is what 
this conference is about. 

This conference is about how a free society, within its value 
system, can harness the rising star of science and technology to 
provide the higher and higher levels of economic abundance, but 
also use that abundance consistent with basic human values to 
satisfy both man's material needs and the needs of the human 

To me, this conference is about how we build a tomorrow in 
which we can have not only more bread, but also more roses. 
Satisfying our material needs is a very simple thing with our ad- 
vanced technology, but if we stand committed almost exclusively to 
the expansion of man's material well-being and neglect his spiritual 
well-being, then I think we will fail to achieve that "Great So- 

What is our basic problem? As I see it, it is summarized in the re- 
marks you made, Mr. Chairman. You said because a sewer col- 
lapsed in Philadelphia you had an opportunity to build a garden 
path and you wanted to make that garden path the way garden 
paths should be, with flagstones and with nature. Instead of that, 
you got blacktop. 

Why is it that we get unlimited blacktop? It is because we have 
limited budgets. We have limited budgets because we give lip 
service to our value system, but we are not acting true to those 

If we are to build an America in which bread and roses can be 
achieved in their proper balance, not in the lives of a few, but in 
the lives of many, then we have a practical job of raising the level 
of understanding of these intangible, human values that we as- 
sociate with beauty. 

The problem is not that we lack the know-how. We have plenty 
of know-how. We have plenty of resources. 

Our problem is that we have not, as a nation, accepted these 
values and prepared to commit ourselves and our resources to their 

I think we have a tremendous job of public education and I hope 
that as a result of this conference and the great national attention that 
will be brought to bear upon the problem, that we can mobilize 
the trade unions and the churches, and the other great organizations. 


If we do so, public planners, architects, and other people who really 
determine the physical environments of our society will respond to 
the discipline of an aroused public understanding. I believe that 
this is the key to whether we can build the Great Society in which 
man can have both bread and roses. 

GEORGE HOWIE. We in the Institute of Traffic Engineers repre- 
sent the profession which provides traffic controls, to some of which 
you may object. Actually, there are national standards in the field 
of traffic controls sponsored by such groups as the American Mu- 
nicipal Association, American Association of State Highway Officials, 
National Association of Counties as well as by our Institute of Traffic 

Two-thirds of all the traffic control devices to which you object 
were installed in violation, in some manner, with those national 
standards. Some are obsolete; some are substandard; some are non- 
standard ; some are badly maintained, or did not belong where they 
are in the first place because they v/ere put in without adequate 
warrant for their need. 

Well-designed highways and streets, do not require as many traffic 
control devices as have been put in under local pressures. 

We recognize and we are shoulder to shoulder with you, that well- 
designed, clean highways certainly encourage good traffic conditions 
and require only a minimum of traffic control devices. 

The worst situations that we encounter are where there is a 
vast clutter of hamburger stands and all the other things that go 
alongside the highway. These have not been properly controlled. 

I would request that when you go home you see that your 
local authorities do abide by and do use the national standards for 
uniform traffic control devices and put in those devices only as they 
are warranted. 

One of the important things that result is that when a standard de- 
vice is used, it has target value and creates instant recognition, so that 
a vastly large sign, an unusual sign, an ugly sign is not necessary. 
A properly designed device will fit into the landscape reasonably well. 

N. E. HALABY. I think the mere calling of this conference has en- 
couraged men like Slayton, Yasko, and others in the Federal 
Government who want to make beauty a part of design. When you 
get right down to it, the Federal official is not normally brave enough 
to take beauty in as a factor. He is not concerned so much with the 
excellence of the design as he is with being safe and sure that he 


will avoid the terror of public error. The interest of the President 
and the First Lady is a great inspiration to him. 

I think another problem is that men in public position who are 
concerned with design are not elevated or protected by their political 
employers. If they are not good administrators, give them an ad- 
ministrative assistant to take care of the paperwork. If they are not 
good budgeters, get a budgeter who has a little taste. If they are 
not willing to innovate, then they are really obsolete. 

We in the Federal Aviation Agency are primarily concerned 
with public safety, but I think it must be dynamic safety. We 
got a man to design the control tower for future years. We did not 
get a man who is a mechanical engineer, to build the least costly 
tower, but we got I. M. Pei to build the most perfect functionally. 
My predecessor, General Quesada, chose Eero Saarinen to design 
a system of safety and convenience around the airport. I do not 
agree with where he located the airport, but I do agree with two 
very important things. He chose top quality and gave them free- 
dom to assist and design all the way from the access roads to those 
80 steps from the seat of your car to the seat of your plane. That 
is what can be done if there is courage in the public trust. 

I think well of the idea of getting double duty out of some of 
our public places. The Union Station here and I hope Mr. 
Hamilton in Los Angeles will agree would be an ideal spot when 
roofed over for a heliport. We are going to have metroports in 
a society of 225 million in 1975, beset with perhaps 110 million 

Finally, it seems to me that we can do a great deal about 
noise and ugliness at airports. Mr. Eckbo and other landscape 
architects are just as important to the Great Society as the me- 
chanical and civil engineers. With their brothers in the architectural 
business, they can build hush parks around airports, beautify the 
approaches, attenuate the noise and make some real improvements. 

Mrs. JOHN M. KENNEDY. Two years ago we organized a beautifi- 
cation council in southeastern Michigan comprised of Oakland, 
Macomb, and Wayne County, and including Windsor. 

I am going to submit a copy of the bylaws to the panel. 

We met monthly on what our cities can do to promote pro- 
grams to better their communities. However, we feel that in the 
two years we have been organized that we have missed our big- 


gest opportunity, that of putting the programs starting in the kinder- 
garten to continue all the way through the colleges. 

Our present generation is not participating in these programs. We 
can work together and start right in on the elementary grades and 
teach our children not to litter, to plant trees. They will take the 
message home, and I think we will have a better United States. 

Mrs. ELIZABETH WEIHE. We have our citizens meeting together, 
people who have never met in one room before and it looks as if we 
will have to have a new auditorium. I can assure you it does work. 
We are sometimes called the bedroom of Washington. Mrs. John- 
son looks our way, so we have to get busy. 

MICHAEL DOWER. May I say first it is a privilege for a group 
of us to come to this country. I would like to make three points. 

The first is about trees. In Britain we have started taking up the 
U.S. technique of planting trees. We are also starting to bring 
them in in ways which have not yet been extensively used in the 
United States, by taking trees not from nurseries but from the woods 
and forests. 

I am struck in visiting America by the fact that so many of your 
cities have great woods right next to them where anyone could 
bring trees without the expensive preparation over the years neces- 
sary in nurseries. I would think you could set yourselves a figure of, 
say, 1 million shade trees for the whole of the United States, each city 
bringing from the woods and forests around it those trees which are 
native to its region and so thereby bringing regional character into 
the city. 

The second thing I want to suggest, which we have used with effect 
in Britain, is that these trees are only seen as one side of compre- 
hensive improvement schemes in towns. We take an area in a 
town and we completely facelift it at one time utility lines, signs, 
shop fronts, street furniture, the whole lot at one time. The amaz- 
ing thing is that the pressure of opinion and of simultaneous action 
forces people to do things which they would have no incentive to 
do if they were asked to do them in isolation, which would be rather 
like asking one gangster to disarm. These schemes are initiated by 
the Civic Trust, which is a private national organization financed by 
industry and concerned with increasing the beauty of British towns 
and countryside. 

Now this could easily be applied to any part of main street 


America or side street America, not just, say, to Colonial Williams- 

The third thing which Mr. Gutheim suggested was the design 
center. We in Britain already have such an operating unit run by 
the government. It is on a more limited scale than he suggested, but 
nevertheless the germ is there. 

Basically, it is a proving agency for designs for street furniture 
and other items which are used outside as well as inside our homes. 
Organized by the Council of Industrial Design, it is substantially 
paid for by income from the people whose designs are approved 
and, therefore, it is not an expensive program. There is a dis- 
play, and government grant-aid is given only for items of approved 
design. I don't know whether the same thing could apply here. 

This design center is based in London and has regional offices 
throughout Britain in the major cities. I imagine you would have 
to do this by means of regional offices in this country, too. 

ROBERT KATZ. I think it is clear from many of the comments 
made today that we are reflecting a national concern, whether it be 
with our lack of trees or the ugly condition of many of our com- 

I would make one comment on this. Let us not make the mis- 
take of equating a national concern with the need to formulate 
national standards for beauty. Instead, I urge that the Federal 
Government's concern for a more beautiful country be translated 
into a multitude of individual local programs. 

The distinction between the necessary broad design guidelines 
which might be set at the Federal level and the precise plans that 
are drawn locally should be sharply drawn in any program that gives 
grants for urban beautification and improvement. I think this is 
imperative, Mr. Slayton. Unless we make such a distinction I think 
we run the risk of building a new national monotonous landscape 
under the banner of beauty. 

Mrs. ELINOR GUGGENHEIMER. At the risk of distressing Mr, 
Reuther, I am surprised that there has not been more emphasis 
placed on the defacing of our cities by automobiles in general. 

I am a member of the New York City Planning Commission. We 
have, at various times, in granting permits for parking lots practiced 
what I would call "Arboreal Blackmail." We have been able to get 


hedges and trees, screening off the parking lots and gasoline stations 
and junkyards. 

As one approaches cities we are faced with the depredation of the 
automobile. The screening of these automotive services and facili- 
ties by various kinds of landscaping techniques can be accomplished. 
Perhaps there are some suggestions as to how we can do it on a 
national level. 

AUGUST HECKSCHER. I think if I were going to say anything on 
this it would be in the nature of a warning rather than a summary. 

There is a great danger in discussions of this kind that we think of 
beauty in too narrow and too conventional a sense and that we 
think about cities as they have been rather than as they must be 
in the times ahead. If, as President Johnson has said, we are going 
to rebuild America in the next 40 years, and it is going to be a dif- 
ferent looking America from anything that has existed before, we 
are going to need wholly new standards of beauty. 

I am all in favor of trees, for example, but I must say I was some- 
what surprised by the exceptional emphasis placed upon them in this 
meeting and by Mr. Gutheim in particular. 

I am all in favor of what Mr. Stone has said in regard to town 
houses as opposed to the individual houses, the small Monticello 
palaces placed upon their 50- by 100-foot lots. But if we are really 
thinking about the new scale and the new America, it seems to me 
our concepts of beauty must be somewhat different from these and 
somewhat more novel. 

I would guess, for example, that the row house is going to be 
only the expedient of a moment in time and will satisfy our re- 
quirements only for a passing instant before we have to go into 
wholly new forms of dwellings that are going to satisfy the im- 
mense population and the immense pressures towards urbaniza- 
tion within this country. 

We will have to break away from the row house into some 
kind of high-rise habitation and in those we will have to find our 
beauty in the same way as with regard to trees. 

When you have the old-fashioned street, it is important to line 
it with trees, but the real question is are we going to have the old- 
fashioned street? 

I think the time is past when you are going to have streets 
which fulfill the functions that have been traditional functions of 
bearing traffic, of carrying pedestrians and, ideally, of allowing 


those meetings and discussions with which we associate democracy 
down from the days of the Greeks. The man in the street, in 
other words, isn't going to exist any more, I suppose, and we will 
have to have a different kind of man and, certainly, a different 
kind of gathering place. 

I think it is very important that we think about the functions 
we need in our cities and that then we find the wholly new forms 
which are going to meet and fulfill them. 

That, really, Mr. Chairman, is what I had in mind. If we are 
closing now, I would rather think we are just beginning; that 
we could consider before we close some of these newer concepts 
and how we can create beauty in a society which is going to be 
increasingly dominated by great masses of people and by unique 
technological methods and processes. 

Statements Submitted for the Record 

MRS. ERNESTA D. BALLARD. The people at this conference are 
leaders in their communities. They were invited to come because 
they share with President and Mrs. Johnson a deep concern for what 
is happening across the land. Our efforts to stop the spread of ugli- 
ness, which have been given a tremendous impetus by this wonderful 
conference, will be picked up and carried on by thousands more 
across the country. Some of these people, through no fault of their 
own, are pitifully unsuited for this job. 

On Friday of last week, two officials of the General Services Ad- 
ministration in Philadelphia came to me for help in the selection 
of trees which they were about to order for placement in redwood 
tubs outside some of the most imposing Federal buildings in Phila- 
delphia. This was being done in order to comply with a directive 
from Washington to beautify those buildings, inside and out. Any- 
one who knows anything about plants or cities knows how soon this 
kind of misdirected effort will become an ugly eyesore. If we are 
to pass the responsibility for beautification on to people in positions 
like these two men, we will have to find ways of guiding their efforts 
into suitable channels or we will find ourselves engaged in a ludicrous 
exercise contributing to the further defacement of our cities. 

VALLEAU G. CURTIS. This is in reply to the statement by the 
gentleman from Great Britain who suggested seriously that we dig 
trees out of the forests and plant them in the city. 

This statement is ecologically unsound. 


Trees growing in forest areas have developed from a small tree 
under shaded conditions. A tree removed from such an area to a 
full sun environment is vulnerable to sun scald splitting of the bark. 
In moving a tree from a forested area, a large portion of the root 
system must necessarily be destroyed. The lack of sufficient root 
system plus the sun condition creates a weak tree which has a very 
poor chance of survival unless it is severely pruned, which would de- 
stroy the shape of the tree. 

We in the nursery business recommend the use of smaller trees, 
if economy is the basis for the suggestion. We recommend using 
nursery grown balled and burlapped trees. 

The smaller well-rooted nursery grown trees recover quickly from 
transplanting the results are vigorous young trees that will stand 
the adverse city conditions. 

ROBERT H. EYRE. Let's reforest our cities. Fifty years ago con- 
servationists sounded the cry that it was necessary to reforest our 
timberland which in many areas had been completely cut down to 
provide lumber for our growing country. Until this time it was 
thought that our forest reserves were so vast that they would never 
be depleted. 

Much the same thing has happened within our cities. What at 
one time were rolling hills clothed with a variety of trees are now 
barren of vegetation. It is now time to apply the same standards 
of conservation and reforest our cities. 

Trees properly used constitute an important design tool for unify- 
ing diverse architectural elements within our cities. They provide 
scale, texture, and color and give a sense of order and restfulness. 

Trees act like a filter to collect particles of air pollution and also 
freshen the atmosphere. 

1. An aggressive program should be initiated through the use of 
trees to screen objectionable, blight-producing areas such as junk- 
yards, billboards, and the like. 

2. This will require large numbers of trees and an expanded 
nursery production of shade tree stock. Why not put to use idle 
forest nursery capacity owned by State and Federal forestry agencies? 

Trees should also be made available on a cost-of -production basis 
to promote wide citizen participation. 

3. Production of shade trees on an expanded scale for urban beau- 
tification could well be emphasized in the Appalachian region, an 
economically depressed area but also a region close to large centers 


of population and well suited to the production of shade tree stock. 

4. In carrying out all phases of this program the possibility of 
full use of the Job Corps and other programs to provide employ- 
ment and training should be investigated. 

5. To implement this program, the desirability of reemphasizing 
Arbor Day should be considered. Tree planting by children will 
help to instill respect and appreciation of the values of parks and 
open spaces. 

Reforesting our cities would provide the acoustical cushion to 
absorb the roar of the city and again provide a haven for songbirds 
and small animals for the enjoyment and education of the city 

RICHARD FANNING. These are my recommendations on the preser- 
vation of community shade trees. 

Although it is fully agreed that assistance should be given to 
well developed tree planting programs in communities, it is equally 
important that measures be taken to halt the loss of certain tree 
species which are quickly disappearing due to diseases such as Dutch 
elm disease and sycamore canker. 

The Townscape session stressed heavily the need for shade trees 
in the community and strongly urged the planting of large trees, 
and yet each and every tree saved from disease is far more valuable 
than a newly planted tree. 

A program is immediately needed to revitalize tree preservation 
programs in communities that have long worked in combating, on a 
local level, various tree diseases. 

1. Initiate a massive and intense research program on effective 
shade tree disease preventatives. 

2. Assist, through grants, in the removal of diseased trees which 
will, in turn, eliminate one phase of the disease cycle and thereby 
reduce the spread of disease. 

JUSTIN HERMAN. Two recommendations are submitted: 

1. The Housing and Home Finance Agency should establish a 
new element in its workable program requirements for community 
improvements. This would recognize design and beautification 
values in those activities of the city which lend themselves to aid 
under HHFA programs. 

2. The Urban Renewal Administration of the Housing and Home 
Finance Agency should recognize the value (as noncash grant-in- 
aid) for exterior works of art, murals, fountains, statuary, de facto 


public parks and plazas, etc., funded by private developers but en- 
joyable or useable by the general public. 

PATRICK HORSBRUGH.* Much has been said in favor of foliage. 
More needs to be known about the value and vitality of water, in 
conditions of high population pressures. 

A special study is therefore recommended of the social and thera- 
peutic significance of water : the ecological and local climatic effects 
of water; the visual, auditory, sensual, spiritual, and aesthetic benefits 
of the need to expose water in its varied forms in the urban scene. 

Whoever saw an ugly reflection? I plead that funds be allotted 
from a foundation or from Federal sources for the making of a 
comparative survey, an illustrated report and a film (28 minutes) in 
praise of water as an essential part of improved urban design. 

In desert places, exhibition of water in even a minor display 
assumes something of a spiritual significance, as in a Persian garden. 
In lush environments where it may be used more freely, water pro- 
vides a symbolic elegance and personal identification with the public 
scene. In any event, water deserves more adequate recognition 
and widespread uses within the increasingly dense urban enviria. 

DONALD W. INSALL. Beautification programs always start with 
"Let's plant trees". We in Britain, used to make a mistake: until 
recently, we were forever planting, not trees, but small flowering 
shrubs. Small flowering shrubs are entirely out-of-scale with the 
modern urban townscape. Washington is incredibly lucky you 
have real trees. Washington, please keep it this way. Other cities, 
please follow. 

But trees are not the end of it. Beauty is not the same as beautifi- 
cation. Beauty is simplicity and truth; and a beautiful city is one 
with personality, well designed and planned, just being herself. Fritz 
Gutheim is right. Cities are as different as people. How can we 
help a city to express her special character and beauty? Not by 
drawing board planning, but first by sensitive analytical survey. 
Then by playing up every feature, every asset, every charm. By 
clearing away confusion, eyesores, muddle. By seeking and seizing 
every opportunity as it comes. You cannot do it with cosmetics, 
with flowerbeds, or even with trees. 

First study and know your city ! 

*This is an extension of remarks made by Mr. Horsbrugh during the panel 


To husband our resources well, we must first define (a) their 
limits, (b) their qualities justifying conservation, and (c) what de- 
tractions call for remedy. 

The greatest assets of our towns are (a) their individuality, (b) 
special neighborhood and townscape elements, and (c) buildings of 
architectural distinction. Each needs help. 

Conservation is only one facet of total planning. Conflicting 
claims of heritage, use, and change demand decisive resolution. De- 
cisions are impotent without a competent executive. And executive 
agencies need initiative and incentive. Honor, encouragement, 
awards, profit, all have their place. 

Given last, a program of education in appreciation, maintenance, 
and management, our cities can then earn and deserve our pride. 

FRITHJOF M. LUNDE. There are a very few "Lyndhursts" in 
America; and few cities and counties have other than isolated exam- 
ples of Early 18th Century, Post-Bellum or Eclectic residential archi- 
tecture under the protection of the public domain. 

There are, however, in the heart of almost all municipalities indi- 
vidual fine houses or rows of mansions on the fine or once-fine 
streets, usually of high quality construction, often architecturally 
significant or at least exemplary of the vigorous, exuberant forms 
of vernacular Gothic, Georgian, Richardsonian, Greek Revival, or 
regional styles. 

They are generally in financial or maintenance decline, passing 
out of owning families, into the gray areas of urban blight or into 
conversion to funeral parlors, private schools replete with awkward 
fire escapes, or into dereliction for tax, probate, or area obsolescence 

As the decades pass they will ultimately be (if they still exist) part 
of our historical heritage to a greater and greater degree. Even now, 
along with public buildings they are the only buildings of quality 
which most communities possess. 

This proposal seeks to define a possible zoning-redevelopment 
framework in which government, institutions, and entrepreneurs 
singly or in concert can work to preserve this heritage in as many 
areas as possible. 

"Mansion-Row Zoning" would be premised on the thesis that the 
better historical-architectural prototypes, and more particularly 
groups of them, where such exist, are vested with a public interest 
whether or not they are in the public domain at the time of their 


designation. The provisions to be incorporated in enabling legis- 
lation would call for the creation of mansion zones, the intent of 
which would be to permit special consideration and broad zoning 
exemptions, particularly of use zoning, subject to the control of 
the planning authority or planning board. The functions of the 
appeals body would be restricted to staying actions. The mecha- 
nism of the ordinance would have to provide for selection of archi- 
tectural examples based firstly on basic architectural worth, then, 
in order, upon state of preservation, location in the community, 
and lastly upon potential for absorption into the public or quasi- 
public domain or into a long-term redevelopment scheme; designa- 
tion would be by an appointive body whose members would be des- 
ignated as the official representatives of organizations in interest 
(that is historical societies, architectural societies, art historians, his- 
tory teachers, horticultural societies, etc. ) by the organizations them- 
selves. The ordinance would name the participating bodies, with 
their consent ; the language would be permissive and not mandatory 
upon the cooperating organization. 

The heart of the proposal would be in the variation of the use as- 
pect so as to permit, subject to appropriate safeguards, broad lati- 
tude in exploring ways to save the buildings on a sound economic 
basis. Governments as first priority purchasers can well afford to 
consider housing specialized agencies of a prestige nature in the kind 
of quarters which these proud or once-proud buildings represent. 
Institutions could next be polled to see if preservation could be 
arranged by them through purchase, bequest, long-term purchase 
options, installment purchase, or similar devices. 

Private developments would be considered as the third alterna- 
tive and the most likely one in most instances. Individual buildings 
on large plots or groups of mansions on large or moderately large 
plots, so typical of these fine houses, would be designated as redevel- 
opment districts (if private negotiation arrangements for the preser- 
vation-designated buildings failed), thereby bringing them into the 
public domain. Under the circumstances envisaged, cost write- 
downs of these redevelopment areas would not be required as the 
land so assembled would, if centrally located, normally be of higher 
value as a large parcel than any individual holding. The participat- 
ing entrepreneur would first enter into a negotiation agreement with 
the municipality or county (or State) permitting him to negotiate 
for all or most of the properties in the designated group. Prior to 


attempting to purchase or obtain options, he would have submitted 
for approval a general development schematic study which would 
establish the proposed land coverage, permitted uses, floor area ratios, 
and parking requirements of the scheme, the essence of which would 
contemplate the use of the mansions fronting these properties as 
executive offices of various concerns who would have the balance of 
their enterprise housed in an interior lot building attached by porte- 
cochere or glazed passage to the mansions. Such interior buildings 
would have to be thoughtfully designed so as to be compatible with 
the mansion or mansions, particularly if the interior building relates 
to more than one mansion. Parking requirements would have to be 
met, and mandatorily behind the front line of the adjacent mansion, 
thereby preserving the open aspect of the front lawns. 

This proposal therefore couples landmarks preservation to urban 
redevelopment, aimed primarily at the smaller suburban municipal- 
ity and county seat, although it could be equally applicable to metro- 
politan areas and State capitals. 

It is further proposed that a sponsoring organization undertake 
the drafting of model legislation (unless it already substantially 
exists ) , and then enter into a sponsorship agreement with a munici- 
pality to undertake a demonstration project and the enabling zoning 

The language of the ordinance would bind any future owner to 
maintain not only the exterior of the building but the basic interiors 
of the important rooms as well, in a reasonable intact condition true 
to the architectural spirit of the building. Changes such as air con- 
ditioning, sprinkler systems, and so on, would be submitted to the 
selection board for aesthetic approval. Interior furniture respectful 
of the building would be encouraged so as to avoid the standard 
office look. 

HAROLD LEWIS MALT. The roses and trees urged for the urban 
landscape will not long survive midst the weeds pushing up through 
the asphalt jungle. These weeds are hardy. They grow wild and 
unchecked. They never disappear. Blanketing the ground, they 
push up and pollute space. They come in many varieties: light 
poles, signs, traffic signals, and fire plugs. And they seem eradicable. 

Members of the Townscape panel and others have suggested these 
weeds are a local concern. They say this has not been an area for 
Federal action. And in a sense this is so. The need, the desire, the 
action must originate at the municipal level. 

779-59565 8 


However, the weeds will not be eradicated or controlled by local 
governments. They have neither removal techniques nor anything 
better to replant. These officials have neither the instrumentality 
for control nor the tools or techniques from external industry. For 
the suppliers of components have been either unconcerned with the 
problem or unable to cope with it. Perhaps this is because of the 
fragmented nature of the industry. 

One group of manufacturers supplies only poles. Another pro- 
duces only lights. Still other companies make signs. And different 
companies supply only traffic signals. There is no component inter- 
face. All these parts must be put together by the municipal people 
with blacksmiths' brackets and baling wire. The result is functional 
and visual chaos. 

Therefore, Federal and institutional support of research is 

The immediate need is to develop performance criteria, to deter- 
mine what these equipments should do. 

Then a systems concept and approach to design and installation 
of street facilities is required. We must leapfrog the obsolete prac- 
tices. We must redesign with advanced technology for America's 
future needs. This kind of research the Federal Government can 
and should support. 

This research will show what can be done. It will result in new 
prototype systems and equipments. These will promise a new en- 
larged market to industry. 

Manufacturers will be quick to seize upon and utilize the by- 
products of this research. They will soon make available these new 
systems particularly if the government supports their adoption in 
new urban projects. 

Municipal administrators, directors of streets and traffic commis- 
sioners, will at last have available sources of better supply. 

Then, indeed, will the weeds on the urban landscape have been 
controlled. The urban soil will have been conditioned to accept the 
trees Mrs. Johnson suggests we need. The weeds will not over- 
whelm the trees the citizen plants or the flowers he tends. 

WILLIAM H. SCHEICK.* The American Institute of Architects 
wholeheartedly supports the President's objectives and his statements 
for great national programs to conserve and restore the natural 

*This is an extension of remarks made by Mr. Scheick during the panel dis- 


beauty of this Nation. The Institute is especially concerned with 
all aspects of the nationwide movement which relate to urban and 
manmade environment. 

As an immediate acceptance of its responsibility in this area, the 
AIA has launched its "War on Community Ugliness A Great 
Environment for a Great Society." The resources of the 158 chap- 
ters of the Institute are being marshalled to conduct for the citizens 
of cities in all 50 States educational programs which will inform civic 
leaders and citizens of their opportunities to beautify their cities and 
plan for the future. 

A 27-minute motion picture has been produced by the Institute 
entitled "No Time for Ugliness An Evaluation of American 
Cities." The movie contrasts the beautiful with the ugly with 
scenes from a number of American cities. The selections include 
entrances to cities, waterfronts, intown and suburban housing of 
several cost levels, business districts, suburban shopping areas, public 
plazas, and restored historic neighborhoods. 

The movie will be supplemented with brochures and publications 
to describe procedures by which civic action groups can carry out 
beautification campaigns. A major item of literature is to be a 
sample list of ordinances, regulations, and enabling acts which have 
been successfully used in various cities to attain objectives in civic 

The Institute believes that this list will provide a major tool for 
effective and continuing action in all cities. However, the Institute's 
resources for complete research and compilation of such ordinances 
are limited. We have proposed to Urban America, Inc., that this 
would constitute an excellent research project for a grant by Urban 
America, Inc., from its foundation funds. 

The American Institute of Architects will supplement its own ef- 
forts in the War on Community Ugliness through collaboration with 
other organizations and the government whenever opportunities 
present themselves. 

Dr. J. HAROLD SEVERAID. Adequate urban development does not 
necessarily preclude a maximum blend of man with nature. In the 
long run wise planning can provide an acceptable compromise of 
both values. And nothing less than this should be tolerated by the 
citizens who have to live confined in a concrete wilderness. 

No city should be allowed to develop as a slave to manmade 
structures. A city and its people could not long endure unless there 
is adequate open space. 



1:30 p.m., Monday, May 24 

The Chairman, Mr. SIMONDS. Fellow dreamers, you who have 
a vision of a more vital, more refreshing, more stimulating living 
environment; fellow crusaders, you who share an urgent compulsion 
to make this dream come true, welcome to this panel on Parks and 
Open Spaces. 

It is fitting that this conference should be held in our capital city 
of Washington, where one finds some of the most beautiful open 
spaces of the western world. 

This conference is symbolic. It is an historic underscoring of an 
awakened concern for our national heritage. Under the perceptive 
leadership of our President and his Lady, the tide is running as never 
before for the preservation and development of the natural beauty of 
our country and for the creation for our people of more beautiful 
highways, more beautiful countryside, more beautiful cities and thus, 
a more beautiful United States. 

For this objective to be achieved, it must be approached with all 
the planning skill and idealism that can be applied. 

One is reminded in this task that the great Kublai Khan who, 
in the planning of his magnificent city, Cambaluc, said: "We must 
plan here on these northern plains, a city with which men will find 
themselves in harmony with nature, God, and with their fellow men." 
And then he set about to do it. We can afford no less lofty a con- 
cept in the planning or replanning of our cities today. 

Members of the Panel on Parks and Open Spaces were Arthur A. 
Davis, Charles W. Eliot II, Jane Jacobs, John O. Simonds (Chair- 
man), Otis A. Singletary, Arnold H. Vollmer, Walter E. Wash- 
ington, and Senator Harrison A. Williams, Jr. Staff Associate was 
Milton B. Davis. 



Said Kublai Khan : "It is not enough to build parks in our city. 
Rather, we shall create our whole city as a park." And so today it 
is not enough to build open spaces into our cities; we must rather 
conceive of each city as an interrelated park, sometimes in tight com- 
pression and sometimes open and free, with homes, schools, factories, 
and institutions beautifully interspersed. 

As we talk today about city parks and open spaces, we must 
understand their purpose. Open space with no purpose may be 
only emptiness. Knowledgeable urban designers know that to be 
significant, each space or complex must be planned so as to express 
and accommodate its function. 

For example, if you were to build a play lot for a child, this play 
lot must be a plaything in itself, with bright colors, rich textures, 
symbols, things to put on top of each other, things to move around. 
It must have low spaces, high spaces, things to crawl through, places 
to stand on, things to stir the child's imagination. 

Each space within our cities must be designed in size, shape, pro- 
portion, color, texture, and symbolism to express and accommodate 
its function. 

How do we build a city into a salubrious environment? How do 
we build this magic environment for mankind? 

The answer is simple. We build it thoughtfully, carefully, and 
expressively, space by space, place by place. And the sum of these 
places and spaces will be this more vital environment. 

What are the functions of open spaces and parks? They are 
ways for movement of vehicles and pedestrians. These must be de- 
signed as ways, free-flowing channels for movement without friction. 
They are places, and these places must be planned as congregating 
places, each designed to express its function. If these ways and 
places together are conceived in harmony with the natural and man- 
made features of the city, then and only then is the form good. Then 
and only then is the city beautiful. 

Our purpose today is not to philosophize. Our purpose is to de- 
velop a series of specific and creative concepts and suggestions for 
Federal, State, and local action. 

I would like to start off with a few proposals. First, I suggest 
that an appropriate Federal agency initiate regional conferences and 
seminars on open space planning. They should be held again and 
again, around the country, where people who care can come together 
and discuss park and open space planning in depth. 


We need a study of the economic value of urban parks, parkways, 
and open spaces. We seem to think that when you put land to park 
or open space use, you take it away from the city, that you take away 
from the real estate value of the city. I have heard a distinguished 
planner say that the future of Chicago would be grim indeed if it 
were not for the Cook County Forest Preserves, those great green 
rivers of parkland that flow through all of Cook County and around 
which much of the best development in the county occurs. 

What do these parks cost the local government? The first band 
of property around the edge of a forest preserve increases in value 
because the park is there. It has been said that the increased tax 
yield on this first band of property is more than enough to acquire 
and develop and operate the preserves which attract the best housing, 
the best industrial parks, the best commercial areas, the best insti- 
tutional development in the Chicago area. 

I propose that the Housing and Home Finance Agency or some 
appropriate agency make a study of what open space and park 
planning brings to a city in terms of, not only economic value, but 
of all the other values as well. I believe that if such a study is made 
and the facts become known, there would be a drive to get more and 
more open space, to build more value into all of our cities. 

I propose that the Bureau of Public Roads require that grants-in- 
aid be contingent upon more effective coordination of highway plans 
with comprehensive and open space plans of local governments. 

I propose a permanent State commission or department on en- 
vironment, so that at the State level there is some agency to coordi- 
nate all the many diverse open space, recreation, and conservation 
programs of the State. 

I propose a regulation to preserve all streams and river basins to 
a 50-year flood level against development, except for agriculture, 
recreation, or parkway purposes. 

I propose that flood plains be reserved for open space purposes 
and be used to build great greenbelts down the valley floors and 
up the streambeds, forming a green center for our cities. 

Mr. DAVIS. I should like to use my time to identify what seem 
to me two principal requirements for seeing to it that our cities 
have and hold adequate parks and open spaces, and to suggest a 
few ways for meeting those requirements. 

The first requirement is to make our urban parks and open spaces 
places that are worth going to ; that provide fun, sparkle, color, stim- 


ulus, and diversity to our lives; that contribute to the comfort and 
liveability of the city, as well as its beauty and design. 

Parks that are not useful are not prized; they should enrich the 
daily experiences of people as well as contribute openness and green 
to the design of the city. 

Smaller parks, in particular, are too often stereotyped, traditional 
squares or circles crisscrossed by diagonal walks, and equipped with 
a statue at the intersection, several drinking fountains, twice that 
number of "Keep Off" signs, a bit of shrubbery, some beds of an- 
nuals, and if fortune smiles, perhaps several lovely old shade trees. 
Lighting is likely to be by the same fixtures as for any street corner, 
and benches to be of standard design. Larger city park and open 
space areas show little more in the way of imagination. 

Parks need to be comfortable and functional as well as green and 
beautiful and to serve the broadest range of community needs. Parks 
and park programs that work for people all the time, instead of serv- 
ing merely as outdoor window boxes, enjoy the loyalty and affection 
of the community and a parity position in the city budget. Let me 
suggest a few possibilities : 

Family center parks in every neighborhood that are exciting and 
colorful places for youngsters, comfortable social areas for their par- 
ents and grandparents. Equip them with furniture and lighting that 
is gay and attractive as well as functional; make it possible to plant 
flowers as well as admire them, to wade in water as well as watch 
fountains. Neighborhood parks can add a recreation room to each 
house in the area, and do it beautifully. 

Downtown parks, strategically located to ventilate the central busi- 
ness district, meet different needs lunchtime picnics, places for 
shoppers to meet, rest, and chat. Here we would admire and use 
well-designed kiosks where one would buy flowers, or books and 
papers, or refreshments, or perhaps find colorful notices of forth- 
coming art shows, plays, and concerts. 

An "Outdoor Room" for every public library. A bit of open 
space for reading and studying in pleasant outdoor surroundings, 
with seasonal flowers and shrubs, shade trees, pleasant little paths 
and quiet nooks, graceful furniture designed for the setting, perhaps 
facilities for exhibiting local art and sculpture. 

Park-school areas. Not just enlarged school grounds, but a con- 
tiguous park site that can serve joint uses for school and park pur- 
poses, and for community, recreational, and social activities as well. 


Determined efforts to light our parks properly, patrol them ade- 
quately, and take advantage of their natural setting to frame evening 
cultural activities plays, concerts, art shows. How long are we to 
accept the need to fear and the need to avoid our parks at night? 

Urban people have a vast interest in wildlife, especially song birds. 
This interest could be recognized by more intensive management of 
wildlife habitat in urban park areas. Why not have natural wildlife 
areas of a few acres, including perhaps a fishing pond for children, 
within easy walking distance of every city dweller? 

Why not use parks and open spaces to dramatize the entrances 
to our cities? To highlight and enhance historic structures and 
public buildings with natural contrast and counterpoint? To open 
up vistas of the city, providing relief from monotonous urban de- 
velopment? To rescue waterfront areas from decay and incom- 
patible uses? 

The uses of city parks and open spaces are limited only by our 
creativity. If we will it, they can be not only beautiful in the formal 
sense, but sparkling, diverse, colorful, and exciting physical environ- 

Federal programs can help. For example, since its inception in 
1961 the open-space land program has made grants totaling $44 
million for 360 State and local land-acquisition programs in 36 
States, totaling more than 136,000 acres of land in urban areas. 
These sites are being used for park, recreation, conservation, scenic, 
and historic purposes. We can also help to develop and disseminate 
ideas in effect, provide a clearinghouse for data and information. 
Based on our experience, we can occasionally make suggestions as 
to alternatives for meeting particular situations. 

The pending housing bill would broaden and strengthen our 
ability to assist. As President Johnson foreshadowed in his land- 
mark message on natural beauty and in the housing message, a new 
program of grants is proposed to provide financial help for urban 
beautification and improvement. We would be able, also, to help 
in the acquisition of built-up lands in the congested areas of cities, 
and in clearing them for park uses. A new demonstration program 
also is proposed to support projects that can contribute information 
and experience about meeting urban needs for parks and open 

But the Federal role is a limited one, and should remain so. The 
main burdens fall on State and local officials directly responsible to 


the electorate for the quality of the urban environment. They in 
turn will rely heavily upon skillful and imaginative planners, archi- 
tects, landscape designers, and other experts. But something more 
is needed citizen support, indeed, citizen demand, for urban en- 
vironments that are beautiful, pleasant, and varied. Such support 
is the essential ingredient, the base of the pyramid. 

Citizen interest must have not only a voice, but access to expertise, 
and a means to communicate its views. Then it is capable of per- 
forming tasks that cannot be done well by government, if at all. No 
single force has greater capability for achieving the objectives of this 

Organizations like the Nature Conservancy, the National Trust for 
Historic Preservation, the Federated Garden Clubs, and the newly 
formed Urban America, Inc., have tremendous opportunities for 
enhancing the quality of the urban environment and the country- 
side. A disadvantage, however, is the very abundance and diversity 
of these groups, which makes it nearly impossible for them to oper- 
ate together in a fully effective way. As a final suggestion, therefore, 
I would like to suggest that these organizations associate themselves 
in a way that will provide them with staff assistance, keep them 
abreast of what other groups are doing, and otherwise assist in mount- 
ing a unified and coherent attack on ugliness in America. 

A practical advantage would be that these organizations, in con- 
cert with public agencies, could do much to develop local programs of 
urban beautification and improvement, a necessary prerequisite to 
receiving Federal assistance under the proposed urban improvement 
and beautification section of the pending administration housing bill. 

Mr. ELIOT. If we are going to preserve or create beauty in our 
urban environment and before we talk further about natural 
beauty in and around our cities perhaps we should devote a minute 
or two to discuss these terms : 

"Beauty." Don't be disturbed. The professor is not going to 
compete with Plato or Santayana in a philosophic discussion of 
aesthetics. But I do want to call your attention to some of the many 
aspects of "Beauty" which apply to our problems in the exploding 
metropolis. Among them are harmony, balance, sequence, and 

I would emphasize "order" or man's eternal search for a grand 
design to find where he belongs in a fearsomely complicated world. 
We all want to know where we are and who we are. In our cities 


we find our place in the street pattern and the street vistas ; in rela- 
tion to the topography and heights dominated by a building like 
the National Capitol; or in relation to the density and heights of 
buildings. In the future, as in the past, the shape of the city may 
be the key to order and shape is defined by parks and open spaces. 

The point about order is that it is the opposite of disorder and 
ugliness. It is the disorderliness of litter which so offends us, and 
the reliance on disorder to attract attention to advertising billboards. 
To reestablish order we need controls over billboards, greatly im- 
proved maintenance, police protection and law enforcement, and 
education to combat Jitterbugs and vandalism. And we have all 
experienced to greater or less degree, the costs and disadvantages of 
urban sprawl or growth without shape or order. 

The first necessity for the orderly and efficient growth and develop- 
ment of our cities large and small is shape and form. Which 
areas are to be developed and served by expensive roads, schools, 
and utilities, and which are going to remain open or with low 
density? The parks and open spaces define the shape of the city. 

"Natural" is the other keyword in this conference. Mankind 
wants to sense order in what he makes and does, but he also wants to 
feel and know he is part of a natural order. As a physical animal, 
man is dependent on the natural and needs refreshment by recurring 
contact with living things. Too much of our cities is completely 
manmade and consists of inert objects. We need the contrast of liv- 
ing trees and grass, flowers and shrubs and birds and squirrels and 

You may remember that the father of the park movement in 
America Frederick Law Olmsted 100 years ago said that the 
justifying value of a public park is re-creation as well as recreation, 
through contact with pleasing natural scenery. 

In other words, the parks and open spaces in and around our 
cities are not waste lands or unused until they are built upon or cov- 
ered with concrete. On the contrary they are the essential voids 
which give meaning to the solids. They are the essential contacts 
with the natural in an artificial environment. We have a gigantic 
task ahead of us to emphasize the positive uses and values of open 
spaces. Since we have become an urban people we have a special 
obligation to fill the gap in the lives of our children and grandchil- 
dren caused by their increased separation from the natural. 


In this background, let us concern ourselves with problems and 
programs : 

1 . We must preserve what we have inherited against misuse, mis- 
management, or diversion to highway, school, parking, and other 
nonpark uses. Federal grants-in-aid should, in both law and admin- 
istration, make it unprofitable for States and cities to raid the 
existing parks and open spaces. We need help for local governments 
not only to acquire new open spaces but also to maintain the char- 
acter and beauty of our parks. 

2. We must act now not next year or the year after to save 
the essential sites and open spaces in and around our cities. The ex- 
plosion is now. We need action from the Congress and the executive 
departments and agencies on pending bills and programs to expand 
authority and vastly increase the funds available, on appropriate 
matching bases, for acquisition of open spaces in fee or by rights 
and easements. 

3. We must immediately develop and exploit all of the various 
means for continuing privately owned open spaces in accordance with 
city and regional plans. However much we speed action for public 
acquisition of parks and open spaces, we cannot possibly keep the 
balance between what is built-up and what is left open, or maintain 
the shape and form of the urban area by public ownership alone. 

Our national traditions of private ownership and responsibility can 
be invoked and new tools must be added. 

(a) The private owner as custodian or trustee for property to be 
passed on enhanced in beauty and in value should be emphasized. 
From the start 75 years ago of the Trustees of Reservations in Massa- 
chusetts, organizations to hold "beautiful and historic places" and 
conservation and recreation areas have proliferated and expanded. 
They should be encouraged by governments at all levels, by tax 
deductions for gifts of land, easements, and endowment funds. The 
more these private trustee groups can be persuaded to do, the less 
public agencies will have to do. 

(b) The tools for preservation of open spaces in private hands 
need sharpening and support by evidence of successful applica- 
tion. We need information on how we can use such tools as rights in 
land or easements, the legal bases for flood plain zoning or conser- 
vancy or open space zoning, the dangers in preferential tax policies 
and the advantages of tax deferral on classified open spaces. We need 
to disseminate knowledge of how contracts among property owners, 


life-tenancy, lease-backs and other legal ways of keeping private lands 
in open space uses can be applied. 

In summary, we must hold on to what we have in city parks 
and open spaces. 

We must vastly increase public ownership and public controls 
over open spaces to give shape and form to our urban areas and 
act now ! 

We must develop and use private action through trusts and with 
sharpened tools for preservation of open spaces in private ownership. 

Mrs. JACOBS. A Federal renewal official has remarked (not pub- 
licly, but in my hearing) that the open-space program will be useful 
because it will justify taking city areas and removing people who 
cannot be dislodged otherwise. 

If beauty does become another excuse to uproot Negroes, and 
another device to dismember neighborhoods coveted by developers 
then we may be sure that beauty will get an ugly name. 

Let us suppose, perhaps wistfully, that this crusade for beauty will 
aim at bringing pleasure and delight to all city people. 

In that case, as far as parks and open spaces are concerned, the 
first order of business must be to reform park maintenance and 
operation. When we speak of beauty, character, or even usability 
and cleanliness, we are talking of quality. Park quality, unlike 
quantity, cannot be bought with capital grants. Park quality re- 
quires, forever and forever, good, healthy operating budgets. 

I assume you are aware of today's typical deteriorations; neglected 
plantings, broken equipment, pockets of litter, disintegrated pave- 
ments. I assume you are aware of the dreary and humdrum designs 
that anticipate perfunctory maintenance. More parks has a nice 
sound, but what does it mean? Today it means that manpower 
and money already spread much too thin will have to spread thinner. 

This does not mean we need be defeatist about affording more 
city parks and outdoor recreation. But it does mean that it is irre- 
sponsible to wish more parks upon cities that lack funds to maintain 
those they have. 

I am proposing three interlocked programs: Employment, train- 
ing and experimentation, all three to be financed and generously 
financed too by the Federal Government. Nobody else can afford 
to be generous. 

Under the employment part of the program, a cooperating city 
would receive annual grants for park operation. In return, the city 


would agree to maintain at least its current park budgets, and also 
to hire workers from the training program. The more trained 
workers hired, the larger the grant. 

The training program would supply workers equipped with many 
kinds of skills and many degrees of skill. Trainees whose interest 
and capacity merited it, would have received advanced training and 
specialized experience. 

This program would not work if it were only to supply menial 
labor. It would not work if it were cynically meant to placate 
angry, unemployed youth during the summers. It would not work 
if it were motivated by fear of the people, rather than confidence 
in the people. It would not work unless there were jobs open and 
waiting at the end of training. It must be a way of opening up 
permanent, genuine and responsible park careers including careers 
that do not now exist. We need new blood, and new blood always 
comes from below. 

The training program would use city parks leased by the Federal 
Government. These classroom parks would also serve, simultaneous- 
ly, as experimental parks. While each classroom park were under 
lease, it would be done over in part or in whole without reference 
to existing practices and standards. Training would combine with 
the work of creating these experimental parks and learning to operate 
them. This would be training not for things as they are now done, 
necessarily; but as they can be done. 

Experiment must be at the heart of our search for quality. And 
by experiment, I do not mean drawing up new sets of specifications. 
It ought to be a sin, if not a crime, to standardize the design, ma- 
terial or equipment of parks. 

Today many park departments, imprisoned as they are in their 
low budgets and fine print, seem to have lost the capacity to want 
parks intended for more than minimal maintenance. Does the 
cheapest fence to maintain happen also to be the ugliest? Is one 
monster skating rink or pool cheaper to operate than five smaller, 
scattered rinks or pools? And no rink at all still cheaper? Is 
asphalt cheaper to maintain than sand or stabilized earth? Is grass 
a cheaper green than a garden? Is a concrete wall less troublesome 
than a slope? Is a Keep Off sign cheaper than building a good turf? 
The thing is decided. All kinds of possibilities are ruled out in 
advance. A recent English visitor, Lady Allen, noting the effects 
of such prudence and the mentalities of the people who are good at 


it, has observed with scorn that American playgrounds are designed 
for administrators, not for children. 

If beauty is only this year's bandwagon, let us have a good and 
virtuous time discussing it and then forget it. If beauty is to be next 
year's justification for renewal developers and highway builders, let 
us forget it even faster. But if we are serious, let us concentrate 
generously and urgently upon the operation of city parks, in the full 
understanding that this is expensive but worth it worth it not only 
for the obvious advantages of good maintenance and loving manage- 
ment, but because this is the only way we can tap new reservoirs 
of talent and enthusiasm for city park and recreation work, and 
because this is also the only foundation for creating parks worthy 
of being maintained. 

Dr. SINGLETARY. My role here today is to discuss as precisely as 
I can, the implication, indeed the specific assignments, of the present 
antipoverty program and the role that this might play in what is the 
general theme of our conference. 

As you know, the Economic Opportunity Act was passed by the 
last Congress and the office that Mr. Shriver heads was established 
and is now operating in what, from close view, I can tell you is some- 
thing like high gear. The law itself has a number of titles and I will 
not bore you with these, but I do want to say that there are several 
programs within the framework of that bill that should be of inter- 
est possibly the work experience program, certainly the community 
action program, and most certainly two of the youth programs. 

The first of these programs is the one known as the Neighborhood 
Youth Corps. The Corps is now in existence, having components 
in many cities in the United States. The idea here is to provide 
work experience for 16- through 22-year-olds in those areas of our 
social and economic life where urgent public needs are either being 
neglected or not fully met. 

The enrollees in certain of the Neighborhood Youth Corps projects 
are now at work improving forest and parklands, landscaping areas 
bordering on our public highways, and in some cities are working 
on projects having to do with the grounds of public schools, settle- 
ment houses, hospitals, etc. They are planting, seeding, and 

In Buffalo, N.Y., for example, the Neighborhood Youth Corps 
has a program working with and turning out landscape assistants who 
can, I think, look forward very confidently to employment. 


In Newark, N.J., you will find a program salvaging trees in the 
city. In Oklahoma City, landscape assistants are busy. This is one 
program that is already underway in a large number of cities in 
the United States and where youngsters are actually working on 
projects that are designed to improve the local parks and open spaces. 

The other program is the one that I am myself more conversant 
with, and that is the Job Corps. 

The Job Corps is another youth program for the 16- to 22-year-old 
group. It is different from the others in that it is a residential pro- 
gram. It is for youngsters who presumably must have some change 
in their present environment if they are to have much of a chance to 
break out of the cycle of poverty. 

Now in actual practice, most of the work program that is iden- 
tified with the Job Corps is work on the public lands in conservation 
work or in improving public recreational facilities and national parks 
and forests. 

We have felt that there can be some programs where something a 
good deal more pointed could be done, to have some effect on urban 
areas as well. For example, in a number of our job centers around 
the country we have enrollees taking on the actual improvement 
of a city park as a project, say in the city adjacent to their camp. 
We think it will make the people appreciate these youngsters a 
good deal more if they are, in fact, doing something visible in such 
a way that every time one goes by this park and realizes it is a lot 
better looking than it used to be, he can say, "Thank us. We are 
doing these things for you and you have not asked us to do it." 

I think this is a good program aside from what it accomplishes for 
the community. More and more camps are opening up around 
the country, and the taking on of such projects as this in the commu- 
nity is very helpful. 

Secondly, we call your attention to such a program as the President 
announced less than two weeks ago involving New Jersey and the 
Federal Government. In this the State of New Jersey's Department 
of Interior and the Office of Economic Opportunity are tying to- 
gether Ellis Island, Liberty Island, and a blighted area on the New 
Jersey waterfront. This may very well be one of the places in 
the United States most in need of this kind of thing. 

What we propose to do here is create a Job Corps Center and over 
a period of years have a work program pointed toward making a 
shrine, in effect an historic shrine, out of Ellis Island. In my 


opinion, that should have been done years ago. We would also be 
continuing the work on Liberty Island and then reclaiming, if that 
is the proper word, some of the New Jersey waterfront and making 
it into a beautiful, green park. The three will then form one 

It is my conviction that the antipoverty program does have a con- 
tribution to make toward our goal of conservation and beautification. 
Our youth programs are pointed towards this and are equipped for 
this and ought to do more of it than they are doing. I hope as you 
participate in these programs locally, if you do so, you will point up 
the need in your own communities for the Neighborhood Youth 
Corps and the Job Corps to busy themselves in this kind of thing. 

Mr. VOLLMER. When I was studying city planning thirty years 
ago, cluster planning, as a device to conserve and concentrate open 
space had been well established and accepted by the profession. Ex- 
amples like Welwyn Garden City and Hampstead Garden Suburb in 
England and Sunnyside, Radburn and Chatham Village in this coun- 
try could be seen, evaluated and used as precepts. 

Yet a year ago, William H. Whyte's greatly needed restatement of 
and argument for the cluster principle struck many as revelatory, so 
little had been done in its name. 

Again, roughly thirty years ago, I presumptuously called the at- 
tention of New York City's Parks Commissioner to numerous small 
parcels of land owned by other city agencies which were crying for 
transformation into small sitting or play areas. With unusual 
patience and to my infinite embarrassment he reviewed in detail 
the efforts that had been and were being made to acquire development 
rights to these very parcels. Apathy, departmental jealousy and 
inertia largely blocked the endeavor and this was in the adminis- 
tration of Fiorello LaGuardia, no mean redtape cutter himself. 

With deference to my fellow panelists and, for that matter to 
those on the other panels the planning and conservation principles 
which we all advocate here are not new. There may be minor dis- 
agreement as to where and when they are applicable but essentially 
we are together on broad objectives and we are carrying on in a time 
honored tradition. 

Our deficiencies are in practice rather than in what we preach. 
And much of our failure results from the all too human tendency to 
accept the will for the deed, to feel that our wisdom and our state- 
ments of noble intent are enough in themselves. We should make 

779-59565 9 


no small plans but the most sweeping plan achieves little while it 
stays on paper. 

First, we must set our sights on objectives which have a reasonable 
chance of achievement. Excuse my being parochial in the choice of 
an example but the suggestion is constantly being made in New York 
that the City should condemn for park purposes small, temporarily 
unoccupied, parcels in the midtown area. Now the cost of acqui- 
sition of these parcels would be likely to run as high as $400 per 
square foot if there were the chance of a snowball in hell that the 
most enlightened park administrator would propose and the most 
sympathetic budget director approve the expenditure of such sums 
for purposes which, except during a very few months of the year, 
would give the greatest benefits to adjacent property owners. 

( Incidentally, the best thing that could happen would be the de- 
velopment of a new breed of budget directors who would concen- 
trate on seeing that public funds were spent wisely rather than in try- 
ing to block expenditures altogether. But following my own ground 
rules I won't set my sights on Utopia. ) 

To achieve this type of open space I believe we will for the most 
part have to await redevelopment and, depending on the type of 
sponsorship, rely on zoning restrictions or "bonus" incentives to en- 
sure adequate and appropriate open space. Effective legislation 
and administrative procedures should prevent the disposition of land 
now in public ownership until it has been conclusively established 
that it is not needed for park purposes. Land in public or quasi- 
public ownership or the air rights above them should be eyed greedily 
for open space use. 

The auto which has done so much to make the hearts of our cities 
hideous should be made to repay some of its debt to us. Rather 
than being permitted to preempt park space for parking, even though 
it may be only for the period of garage construction, garages and 
parking lots should be made not only to stand on their own feet fi- 
nancially but should contribute open space. For example, in the 
newer housing developments, major parts of the open space around 
the buildings are used for parking; for as little as $4-$5 a square 
foot, these could be covered with light concrete decks. Not only 
would needed sitting or play space be achieved but the outlook from 
the buildings would be immensely improved. 

Again, in the planning and construction of our urban expressway 
systems, land taking should be adequate to ensure not only land- 


scraped buffer areas between the expressway and the neighborhood 
but to yield developed park and play areas as well. The Cross-Bronx 
Expressway in New York in its 5.6-miles length yielded no less than 
22 playgrounds or sitting areas and this without excess land taking. 
Strong leadership, simple legislation and zoning, good public re- 
lations and, hopefully, an enlightened public are what is needed to 
do the trick. There are, unfortunately, no miraculous nostrums or 
universal panaceas and those who promise them delude us, willfully 
or otherwise. 

Mr. WASHINGTON. A preacher was called to a church. His 
first sermon was, "Repent." For the next three Sundays he preached 
the same sermon. Finally a good deacon asked him, "Reverend, 
aren't you going to change your sermon?" He said, "No, I do 
not think so, until somebody repents." 

I am particularly impressed with Mr. Vollmer's statement that 
planning principles are not new. It brings me to the one charge 
that this conference would have for planners and developers today. 
We have to repent if our cities are going to look any better. 

Mrs. Johnson accepted the challenge of urban beautification and 
formed the "First Lady's Committee for Beautification of the Na- 
tion's Capital." This committee's structure and performance may 
well form the model for similar beautification committees in every 
city of our Nation. 

On the occasion of the initial meeting of the committee, I observed 
that we are all pleased with the beautification of the Mall and the 
beauty of the Arboretum and other plantings, but that a really sig- 
nificant dimension would be achieved in the Washington urban com- 
plex when a youngster had an opportunity to plant a tulip or an 
azalea in his own yard. He can then understand the care, the labor, 
the discipline involved in the development of this flower or plant. 
This process will permit him to understand and appreciate the beauty 
of the Mall and the Arboretum. 

Parenthetically, I have been very busy planting azaleas around 
the city since that time. We must expose all of our citizens, young 
and old, to area environments which have beauty, joyfulness, interest, 
as well as character and dignity. In too many instances, our urban 
and open spaces are characterized by what I call the four D's. They 
are dull, dreary, dirty, and depressing. 

We can only free our urban citizens from this drab and dreary 
condition by applying new concepts of physical design and social use 


of open spaces. Architect Albert Mayer has called this process 
"juvenation." Others state that it is the simple process of bringing 
leisure time opportunities to the people in their neighborhoods for 
maximum use. 

In Washington, our Beautification Committee has developed plans 
to beautify some playground and recreational areas. We have also 
looked at our schools in two dimensions. The physical aspect of the 
school, we feel, should be commensurate with the needs of youth. 
Its environment should be pleasant and accepting. A dark and dis- 
mal school and bare grounds are hardly desirable for bright and joy- 
ous intellects. While it is true that darkness is conducive to the 
birth of a seedling, only in sunlight and air can it flourish. When 
the minds of young are exposed to pleasant, festive and interesting 
work and play areas and parks, we see the intellect come through. 
We are happy to note, for instance, that two businessmen active in 
our committee saw this challenge and recently spent some $7,000 in 
beautifying two schools. 

To deal with the objective of maximum beauty in our cities is to 
deal with maximum complexity. The urban area produces multiple 
pressures for available land. This fact is particularly aggravating 
in Washington. Confined to a specific land area, Washington has 
no opportunity for expansion by annexation. Nevertheless, we must 
carefully plan for our city parks and open spaces in the areas where 
most of our people are living. Competition in Washington for avail- 
able land involves land for homes and living space, highways, office 
buildings, industry, commercial activities, schools, libraries, and 
other uses all within a limited area. In the District of Columbia 
we have not looked upon our urban condition with discouragement. 
We have considered it a great challenge to make our Nation's Cap- 
ital truly a showcase for all American cities. 

From recent experience in Washington and several other cities 
I submit a few practical suggestions relating to the application of new 
concepts of physical design and social use of open spaces in urban 

First, we know that parks and open spaces should be located and 
designed so that they are fully accessible and attractive to the interests 
and needs of all age groups. 

Greater emphasis should be placed on the design of small, crowded 
spaces in urban areas. We know there is great opportunity here. 


These spaces should afford opportunities for programing a variety 
of leisure time activities, of interest not only to the individual but 
also to the family unit in the immediate vicinity of the area. 

We should extend our planning of parks and open spaces to ac- 
commodate daytime and nighttime opportunities and activities in 
urban centers, throughout the entire year. 

In the planning of open spaces we significantly correlate many 
factors of physical and social significance such as building types, 
roadways, trees, relationship to neighboring communities, play, 
school, and work areas. 

We should make our open spaces and recreation facilities part of 
the daily environment of our people. We should remove the barriers 
to participation and provide opportunities for all citizens to use open 
spaces and recreational areas. We provide contact with beauty for 
all, in the words of President Johnson, "not just easy physical access, 
but equal access for rich and poor, Negro and white, city dweller 
and farmer." 

Beyond this, I believe that we would all agree that the job ahead 
cannot simply be left to government or to the architect or to the 
planner or to the sociologist. We know the job is a job for all of us. 
As citizens concerned about our cities and the future of our Nation, 
we must all work together. 

Statement of Senator WILLIAMS.* The President's Conference on 
Natural Beauty represents a significant step forward in the search for 
ways to preserve and improve the appearance of our country. 

Planning for the future means planning to make the best possible 
use of all the resources available in our society. With over 70 per- 
cent of the Nation's population now living in urban areas, the open 
spaces in and around our metropolitan complexes are among the 
most precious of all our resources. Yet in city after city, we find 
examples of weed-grown vacant lots, neglected parks, overcrowded 
play areas, and neighborhoods deteriorated to the point where they 
are islands of ugliness. 

We have sacrified beauty for the sake of jamming together 
as many buildings as possible into the smallest amount of 
space, often with little or no regard for the architectural pattern 
of existing facilities. The arteries leading into many of our major 
cities are bounded by clusters of unsightly billboards, or junkyards 

* Senator Williams was unable to be with the panel at the time of its public 
meeting. His statement was read by the chairman. 


piled high with the remnants of discarded automobiles. Suburban 
housing projects have risen with little attention being given to see 
that they fit in with over-all plans of development for the community. 
Similarly, little attention is paid to the aesthetics of setting or design. 

Suburban growth, which increased by a staggering 50 percent 
between 1950 and 1960, is beginning to show the same signs of 
haphazard construction that characterizes our large cities. In the 
rush to accommodate the large exodus of people from the cities, we 
are re-creating the same unhealthy and unhappy environments which 
they are seeking to escape. This urban spillover is becoming an 
increasingly urgent matter that is going to demand more and more 
of our time and energies. 

What are some of the guidelines we already have to meet these 
growing problems, and where can we go from here? 

With the Housing Act of 1961, we launched our first frontal 
assault on the open space problem. Under title VII of that legisla- 
tion I was successful in having $75 million authorized for open 
space use. As of April 30, 1965, this program had made 360 grants 
to communities in the acquisition of more than 136,000 acres of 
land to be devoted to permanent open space. The continuing vitality 
of this program is demonstrated by the fact that 141 of those projects 
were approved during the current fiscal year. 

But like any program which is new, there were defects, and we 
now must begin doing something about them. Localities wishing 
to make use of Federal assistance have run into a number of obstacles 
because of inability to meet matching fund requirements and because 
of the restrictive criteria governing the use of funds upon which the 
initial program was based. 

The bill which I have just introduced would provide for increasing 
the Federal contribution toward acquisition of this land by State 
and local agencies from the present maximum of 30 percent to 50 
percent. In addition it would make money available for develop- 
ing the land as well as purchasing it. I am hopeful that this will 
take some of the pressures off city governments which are squeezed 
the hardest between costs of providing more and more local services 
and the need to purchase rapidly disappearing open space. 

Under the 1965 housing bill, many new programs are foreseen 
which will encourage local experimentation and innovation, that 
should dress up and expand our parks and open space facilities. 

Tree planting and a more tasteful use of shrubbery and flowers 
would be possible to enhance the landscape. 


Outdoor facilities for art exhibits and other such special purposes 
could be improved and expanded, with care being taken to provide 
adequate lighting. 

Playgrounds and other recreational areas could be beautified and 
broadened in scope so as to benefit all age groups. 

Restoration of our waterfront areas should also be high on our 
agenda, and more attention could be given to utilizing our city lake 
and river systems for boating, fishing, and other leisurely pastimes. 

Furthermore, we must begin exercising more imagination and 
foresight in developing long-range plans for the shape of our future 
cities. Each year one million acres of land are lost to urbanization. 
Much of it is wasted when it might have been effectively utilized if 
the communities had a better set of blueprints. The failure to plan 
well now will only spell additional complications and expenditures 
in the future. 

But perhaps most important of all, we must now launch a massive 
national effort aimed at establishing beauty in design as a major 
element in all Federally assisted urban construction programs. I 
have proposed that we begin by amending the Housing Act of 1949 
to add language to the declaration of national housing policy that 
will make explicit the government's objective to provide leadership 
in the achievement of beauty in all communities. 

Along with this, I am going to ask that a National Council on 
Urban Design be established for the purpose of reviewing Federal 
aid projects to secure quality design. 

We will thus be able to put new emphasis on the aesthetics of 
construction that has been so far lacking. 

These are just a few of the initiatives which are going to be needed 
if the concept of a more beautiful society is to be realized. The 
President addressed himself forcefully and eloquently to these prob- 
lems in his recent landmark message. 

The time is now past when we could defer these goals. Our coun- 
try is a gift that has been put temporarily into our safekeeping. We 
do not have the right to spoil that which future generations must one 
day inherit. 

Questions and Discussion 

JOSEPH A. DIETRICH. I notice, as is usual, that in most of 
these discussions the emphasis has been placed on the words "city 
parks." Many of us are also deeply concerned with the problem 


that exists in many of our rural areas and in the villages and towns 
that exist throughout the Nation. 

Cities are equipped with engineers, planners, architects, landscape 
architects, and people in other professions to guide and direct their 
activities. What are we planning and what are we doing about the 
small communities that do not have these services, yet need them 
more than anyone else? 

Many of these little towns and cities are experiencing the push 
of the city population out into their areas. They certainly are faced 
with the problem of land use. Because of their small budgets, they 
must use open space land for other town facilities. Many of these 
towns and cities, however, are not directly looking for Federal aid. 
In fact, they resent in many instances accepting Federal aid because 
of the encroachment that will result from the use of Federal funds. 

Is there some approach being made by this panel? Have you 
discussed it? 

Mr. DAVIS. The point is well taken that the need for parks and 
open space in our major cities is most dramatic. But this does not 
take away for a minute the fact that there is every bit as much need 
to make the smaller towns comfortable and liveable and pleasant. 
It is even more important in some instances, to make sure the people 
do not leave these smaller cities because of their drabness and look 
of uninterest. 

The President's program for open space acquisition and pending 
proposals are equally available to any local agency that can qualify, 
that is, who can contract with the Federal Government. Under the 
present program we have made a grant of $1,000 to one township 
in Pennsylvania. There are only a few thousand souls in this town- 
ship, but I am sure they have a conservation approach to their 
land use problem. In your own State and the neighboring State of 
Massachusetts you are far ahead of most of the country in the 
establishment of conservation groups and conservation commissions 
authorized under State laws to take a good hard look at the physical 
environment of your smaller towns and cities. 

Mr. DIETRICH. I want to commend Mrs. Jacobs' statement about 
the budget. She points out a very definite deficiency. We are all in 
support of what she has said. 

CALVIN S. HAMILTON. It seems to me we need legislation 
which allows park subdistricts in cities. This can help implement 


open space and planned unit residential development and help sup- 
port more than normal level of park development where local com- 
munities want to help pay for it. At present, because of limitations in 
legislation, it is impossible to do this. 

It also seems possible to implement some of the things Mrs. Jacobs 
has suggested in the past. This might include the ability for com- 
munities to be able to develop an open mall. 

Second, I think we need under Urban Renewal Administration 
authority the ability to collect rooftops together. 

Now this may sound silly in some small towns, but in the big town 
where you do not have groundage you have a tremendous amount of 
roof area. There are unique opportunities to develop these for rec- 
reational purposes. 

Third, we need State legislation which would reduce taxes on pri- 
vate country clubs, as a public purpose. It would also apply to pri- 
vate plazas, the sort of thing where you have private, open space. 
The legislation would also allow the city to have first option in acquir- 
ing that land if they ever should plan to sell it, and it would allow the 
city to buy it at an open space value rather than at an increased value 
based on the value of whatever happens to be around it. 

Fourth, it seems to me that the suggestion this morning of an urban 
design center could be used to enforce or achieve the rudiments of 
good design in public parks. 

My last point is that I think the Federal Government should some- 
how or other insist that agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers 
have somebody with design orientation assist them when they develop 
flood control facilities. These now look like the devil and have no 
relationship to public open space. 

DANA L. ABELL. I have one suggestion and one question. The 
suggestion is directed to Mr. Simonds. 

I would like to suggest that he take charge of a project of pre- 
paring two primers on landscape appreciation, one for urban land- 
scape appreciation and one for rural landscape appreciation. His 
ability to express these things is unmatched in this country. Such a 
primer could be sent into the schools and start the children off with 
the kind of appreciation that Mr. Simonds has. 

The question is directed to Mr. Eliot. 

As a recent refugee from suburbia and it does not matter what 
suburbia it is, as it is the same everywhere I could not protest more 


vigorously about your emphasis on order. Order is the curse of 
suburbia, specifically, the uniform setback. 

I wonder if you have any suggestions as to what can be done about 
breaking the stranglehold of the uniform setback in suburban areas? 

Mr. ELIOT. Certainly I do not advocate order in the sense of uni- 
form setbacks. 

What I am trying to say is that we want to know where we are 
and who we are in our great cities. The continuation of Los 
Angeles, mile after mile out into Orange County or San Bernardino 
County, gives us no indication of where we are or who we are in 
the Los Angeles area. 

It would be all to the good to have a great variety of setbacks, to 
have places like Reston, Va., to have all kinds of designs for compact 
clustered or other kinds of developments. I am not in favor of 

PAUL N. CARLIN. My question is directed to Mr. Singletary. 
Many of us are interested in both city and county parks and recrea- 
tion programs. The primary problem which faces us is the provi- 
sion of a hand labor force for many of the jobs that have to be done 
on these types of facilities. 

I wanted a clarification. Did we understand you correctly that 
where Job Corps facilities are located near a city or county park 
or recreation program, that contractual arrangements can be entered 
into between the local governments and the Job Corps? 

Mr. SINGLETARY. This is not the point I was making about the 
Job Corps at all. Job Corps is essentially a training institution 
where a boy decides what he wants to do, divides his time between 
a basic educational program and, in the case of a conservation center, 
a work program. 

In no case do we have in the Job Corps program a contractual 
arrangement. The only arrangement we have at this moment is 
where an activity is taken on as a specific voluntary project. 

The Neighborhood Youth Corps is not a program operated at 
the Federal level. In a city, the Neighborhood Youth Corps might 
be specifically detailed for this kind of work. So there is a dif- 
ference in the two programs and the two objectives. 

As far as the work the boys do, we are primarily concerned in the 
conservation of kids and not of parks and open spaces. There is a 
different emphasis here, but we think that whatever the work pro- 


gram is, conservation of recreational facilities or whatever is in addi- 
tion to any good that might redound to the community. We are 
interested in the good that redounds to the particular youngster in the 
creation of work habits. Many of these boys do not know how to 
work. We see the work program as a kind of therapy and kind of 
discipline as well as something that might produce a particular 

LAWRENCE G. ELLERY. I believe that most of us attending this 
wonderful conference, the first of its kind ever held in the United 
States, have a tremendous obligation to take back with us this in- 
formation as missionaries. We have a hard job to sell. Those of us 
who are here are interested and dedicated to this purpose. 

Our biggest selling problem is going back home and selling our 
regional, local, county, and State governments who are already 
harassed with their multitudinous problems of meeting budgets, 
increased taxes, and wiser spending. With a little wiser spending 
we would have ample money to handle the program projected here 

We are losing ground every day. We are losing hundreds of thou- 
sands of acres that are being needlessly destroyed for the lack of intel- 
ligent planning. One point is to encourage our developers who are 
only interested in dollars and cents to use the services of trained 
people in our profession who have an appreciation of nature and 
how long it takes sometimes 100 years to grow a tree that can 
be destroyed in a few minutes by a bulldozer. 

We cannot rely on the Federal Government for all of this. It 
has to be done through a local citizenry in the towns, States, and 
cities. Through no other effort can this be achieved. 

A DELEGATE. This isn't meeting the issue. The truth of the mat- 
ter is that almost everybody in this room and in the other sessions 
has been doing this kind of selling job. I think we must continue 
our effort at the local scene, but the impact on the cities and urban 
regions of this country comes even now through Federal action. Let 
us face up to this as a reality. 

I would like to suggest that I think there has been something of 
an undertone that everything that exists today is bad. 

I am grateful to Mr. Ellery who suggests that there are things 
which are good and which must be saved. 

The great issue before us is not so much where to build, but where 


not to build. It is in this direction that I think we have to direct a 
great deal of our effort. 

I am thinking particularly of a situation, a current battle, that 
will go on for another four years or longer, whatever is necessary, to 
save a very magnificent, not a good park, but a magnificent park, the 
Brackenridge Park in San Antonio which is threatened by an ex- 
pressway. This is a classic case because most controversies with 
regard to the route of an expressway involve a parkway, a play- 
ground, a college campus, a zoo, or some special kind of garden. 

It so happens in this case that the proposed expressway invades 
all of these things in one wholesale swoop, not only crosses over rec- 
reational area, destroys a Girl Scout camp and nature trail, cuts across 
a flood basin where water went up to a very high height with 
recent floods, crosses over a roller coaster, over a huge dam, cuts 
through a college campus, blocks off the extension of the municipal 
school gymnasium, blocks off the entrance for the east side of the 
school stadium, practically destroys the sunken gardens, and on 
and on and on. 

If we are to be concerned with the kind of problem facing us, 
and I would like to balance or redress a little of this in balance in 
tone, there are many important things in this country we must save, 
but it is no good trying to save with one hand what we are losing 
with the other. I fear that this is not understood and is retained in 
all of our thinking. I think this is terribly important to keep in mind. 
Where the fight is being carried on, we have to get a little bit more 
direct action. Beauty is now politically sacrosanct. The President 
of the United States has made it so. 

I remember a meeting in Reno, Nev., just a few weeks ago, a 
meeting of the county officials of the Midwest and Western States. 
The county officials in the western areas understand what is being 
talked about. The problem is what kind of programs can be 
developed at the Federal level and through the Federal impact and 
I think we ought to face up to this as a reality. My specific sugges- 
tion would be that the rest of this session be combined with other 
sessions on the design of highways and that we try to get the Presi- 
dent's message to all of the agencies. 

A DELEGATE. We are using the regional planning vehicle. 
If you are not using it in your part of the country, let me 
recommend it to you. It has been demonstrated that if districts are 
organized and coordinated with the State and Federal governments, 


a group of counties within a natural watershed area can do a job 
very effectively in the area of beautification, water conservation, 
wildlife habitat preservation, and so on. 

We are at the apex of three counties. Can you imagine trying 
to save an open space area under that situation? We tried and lost. 
Now we have a State law going through which is called a local 
cooperation statute so a number of the municipalities in that area 
can join together and bond themselves, and condemn open space land 
in order to save it for our future generations. 

This area is the Wolf River Basin. If you talked about zoning 
to the townships a few years ago, they would run you out of town. 
Today the problems are so serious they can't wait until regional 
planning comes in with a program of land use, planning, and zoning. 

If you want to strengthen the whole effort and want to unify the 
Federal effort, regional planning is going to do this. I just attended 
a national watershed conference. One of the Western State repre- 
sentatives said three Federal agencies and his State had separate 
programs. The Bureau of the Budget said, "Look, if you fellows 
don't get together you won't get a dime." 

I think the Bureau had the whip hand there; it used it, and should 
have used it. Regional effort strengthens the local effort and helps 
to unify its purposes. 

Statements Submitted for the Record 

BYRON R. HANKE. The carpeting of more millions of acres for 
new homes need not thwart our efforts to provide open areas for 
an urban society. 

Adequate land planning for future development could be rewarded 
by a dividend of half-million acres of new urban parks in the next 
35 years. The vehicle through which this acreage could be provided, 
improved and maintained is known as the planned-unit development 
with a homes association. It can be done without extra initial costs 
to developers, homebuyers or government, and without an increase 
in the general tax burden. 

In the planned-unit development or cluster technique for devel- 
oping new residential areas, the large open spaces and recreational 
areas are obtained by intensive use of land for housing in some sectors 
while preserving other sectors as open space for the benefit of the 

This does not necessarily alter over-all residential density patterns. 


It does permit pooling of land for the greater benefit of all concerned. 

The cluster technique actually reduces housing construction costs 
by shortening the network of streets and utilities. If over-all density 
is increased, it also reduces the raw land cost per dwelling unit. 
Exemplified by Fremont, Calif., local governments are having suc- 
cess with a small percentage increase in over-all density as a bonus 
in local planning regulations. This encourages land developers to 
use the cluster technique as a rule instead of an exception. By such 
rewards the current development practice of homes without open 
space could be replaced by a general practice of homes plus parks at 
the same or a lower price. 

President Johnson in his message to Congress earlier this year said, 
"in the remainder of this century . . . urban population will double, 
city land will double . . ." 

At the present rate of use this means that 10 million additional 
acres of land will be urbanized by the year 2000. Thus, if planned- 
unit development resulted in the dedication of open space equivalent 
to only 5 percent of the total new residential areas, a half million 
acres of recreational open space would be added to our Nation's 

The maintenance of the open space in a planned-unit development 
is assumed by a homes association in which membership of all lot 
owners is automatic. The association finances its care, determines 
its use, and undertakes the responsibility for its maintenance. Pri- 
vate maintenance of the common open space with private funds 
assumes significance in the light of Mrs. Jacobs' reminder in the panel 
discussion that maintenance of many existing public parks is poor 
because insufficient money is available to maintain the parks we now 

We need to have our parks and places of recreation where the 
people are so they can be used as part of day-to-day living. A park 
in a remote location which is relatively inaccessible has little meaning 
in the day-to-day life of the urban dweller. Convenient access is 
inherent in the planned-unit development in that the open spaces are 
interrelated with the homes and intimately associated with the daily 
life of the neighborhood. These association-owned parks are in- 
tended to supplement the major parks, playfields and open space 
reservations needed by the larger community and supported by public 

The long and remarkably successful experience of automatic- 


membership homes associations is revealed in a recent study by the 
Urban Land Institute of Washington, D.G. Comprehensive guide- 
lines for creating successful PUDs and homes associations are avail- 
able in ULFs Homes Association Handbook, in FHA's Bulletin 6 on 
Planned-Unit Development, in the American Conservation Associa- 
tion's publication on Cluster Development by William H. Whyte, 
and in ULI's new bulletin on Legal Aspects of Planned-Unit Resi- 
dential Development With Suggested Legislation. Related informa- 
tion on land-use intensity and varied building types in planned-unit 
development are in the statement by Richard J. Canavan, FHA 
Assistant Commissioner for Technical Standards contained in the 
proceedings of the panel on the New Suburbia. 

In view of the opportunities in the planned unit development with 
maintenance by a homes association, it is desirable that those en- 
trusted with the responsibility for planning land development, devel- 
oping local regulations for land subdivision, and the development of 
park land take an active lead in pursuing this course of action. 

BARRY F. MOUNTAIN. Suburbs sprawl, cities decay; automobiles, 
filled with anxious Americans seeking a measure of serenity in their 
lives, stream outward from city centers; and the cities gorge them- 
selves on the ever-receding countryside. Now, while there is still 
time, we must provide space in which to live and grow. We owe it 
to ourselves and to generations of unborn Americans. 

It is not enough to simply preserve our existing park space, or to 
create open spaces in revitalized urban areas. These are solutions 
for the present but, what will happen in 20 years? 

We feel, based upon our own experience in urban renewal and 
master planning, that it is time to take stock of all that has been 
accomplished heretofore and of the challenge we face in years to 
come. Are we proceeding in the right direction? Do we ourselves 
have a master plan? 

What we propose is the creation of a total but individual master 
plan for the development of each of the 50 States. A total, com- 
prehensive effort based upon principles outlined by the Federal Gov- 
ernment, to be implemented through local and State initiative; one 
which will compliment and reinforce the President's program to 
beautify America. An effort that utilizes all of the sociological, geo- 
graphical, and anthropological research available; and which pro- 
vides for research into new methods and materials for recreational 


We know that the mind is generally little influenced by temporary 
exposure to beauty. Rather, sensibilities are molded by frequent 
contacts which form a meaningful, if subconscious, part of our ex- 
istence. How can we expect our people to seek out beauty and 
improve their condition if we provide no daily stimulus to their 

Therefore, we suggest a plan which provides for the creation of 
a series of parks and playgrounds beginning in urban areas and 
progressing into and through the suburbs. A series of islands where 
one may go to sit or walk or just be alone; places close to the city 
center as well as beyond, where it is possible to walk within a grove 
of trees, however small; where flowers can grow; and where grass 
can reach its natural growth. 

No home should be more than a few blocks walk in any direction 
from an open public space (be it a city block square or 10 square 
miles). We must not try to compress all types of facilities within 
the same areas; rather let some islands be green with only trees, 
flowers, benches and walks; let some be playgrounds with swings 
and slides; and let others be athletic islands with courts and ball 
fields. These islands will open the cityscape and provide a variety 
of stimuli for a variety of activities; and they will add immeasur- 
ably to the beauty in our everyday lives. 

The White House Conference on Natural Beauty should be but 
a prologue to the great things that lie ahead. Even with the energy 
and direction available in this country today, there is much to be 
done but, if we start now, there will still be time. 

Dr. J. HAROLD SEVERAID. Sacramento County, Calif., in part 
more urban than rural, has developed an ideal plan for developing 
county parks and open spaces. It has already met most of the 
criteria called for by Mr. Belser. Their 58-page published plan, 
entitled: "A Report on the Park and Recreation Space Needs of the 
Sacramento Metropolitan Area," by Pacific Planning and Research, 
Sacramento, might well be investigated as a possible model. (Ad- 
dress: County Planning Department, 827 Seventh Street, Sacra- 

Let's start tax-exempting open space back into existence instead 
of taxing it out of existence. Open space has as great a value to 
man's well being as does revenue space. Take the exorbitant profit 
out of land speculation and open space will be less prone to be forced 
into the asphalt jungle. 


BEVERLY S. SHEFFIELD. My suggestion and recommendation is 
that we search out a way to eliminate throwaway beer cans and 
bottles. These throwaway containers depreciate and mar the beauty 
of our parks and road rights-of-way. In many instances they are 
thrown on private property. They not only create a litter problem, 
but the broken glass bottles forever present a hazard. Often these 
bottles are broken at swimming pools, picnic areas, and along streams. 

I suggest that the beer distributors be approached on putting their 
merchandise in containers that require a deposit such as the old 
glass beer bottle. I also suggest that the manufacturers be asked 
to come up with a product that would soon disintegrate when left 
in the elements. 

779-59565 10 



3:30 p.m., Monday, May 24 

The Chairman, Mr. CLAY. Water is the great giver of life. Close 
to its banks and shores men have raised their greatest cities. Without 
water, civilizations wither and men perish. It is the flyway for 
ducks, the great distributor of raw materials, and also common car- 
rier of contamination, of the wastes of bodies human, governmental, 
and corporate. 

Concerned as we are with water, concerned we must therefore be 
with the total environment and not merely with its bits and pieces. 
More than any other at this White House conference, I think, this 
panel must be especially concerned with relationships between men, 
and between all the elements of their environment and the goals we 
believe this environment should attain. 

In an earlier America, poets have measured their waters and found 
in them, not contamination, but inspiration. High in the north 
Georgia hills, Sidney Lanier lived and wrote his incomparable "Song 
of the Chattahoochee." The years have dealt gently with that lovely 
poem, but not with the waters of that urbanizing river. I hope Mr. 
Lanier's memory will not be offended if I offer a contemporary 
version : 

Out of the gullies of Habersham 
Out of the gutters of Hall, 
I try in vain to reach the plain, 
Before the bulldozers get at it again, 
Silted, polluted, deprived of the rain, 

Members of the Panel on Water and Waterfronts were Repre- 
sentative Frances P. Bolton, Henry P. Caulfield, Jr., Grady Clay 
(Chairman), Representative John Dingell, Leonard Dworsky, Carl 
Feiss, Senator Philip A. Hart, Christopher Tunnard, and Conrad L. 
Wirth. Staff Associate was Allan Hirsch. 



My bed is too narrow, the dumps are too wide, 

I flee man's folly on every side, 

He's damming and sluicing me down through the plain 

Far from the gullies of Habersham, 

Far from the gutters of Hall. 

On today's waterfront, we deal with two parts hydrogen, one part 
oxygen, three parts unregulated self-interest. Strip off all natural 
protection, add an uncontrolled population, and you get the ex- 
plosive mixture which confronts this conference today. 

Our purpose is to get nature back into the equation; to control 
man's reckless exploitation of waters and the lands to them contribu- 
tory; and to recommend to the President of the United States specific 
ways and means. 

My task is to look first far upstream at the sources of waters ; and 
then to introduce our panelists who will carry us rapidly downstream 
from one recommendation to the next, pausing to look scathingly 
perhaps, constructively, and not too long, at the waters, banks, adja- 
cent lands, views and prospects and to recommend precise measures 
to improve the quality of that environment. 

We begin, as do the waters, deep in some wooded glen or in the 
hollow of a hillside where water pure and undefiled gushes from the 
ground. We are here at the incomparable spring, God-given source 
of a mighty river. Such sources of all significant rivers should be 
identified, mapped, and then protected as unique and often his- 
toric elements of the landscape. They should not be drowned, de- 
stroyed, or sequestered for private purpose. Protect them we must 
by easements, purchase, leasehold, or other methods. If the city 
of Paris can protect the source of the Seine high in the mountains 
north of Dijon, cannot we do the same with sources of our great 
rivers? I recommend that such a national policy should begin at 
once with the source of the Potomac River, that the District of 
Columbia enter upon a joint venture with the appropriate Federal 
and State agencies to do this. 

Next, in all that we do, we should encourage waters to walk, not run 
to the nearest gravitational exits; to percolate, insoak, infiltrate. 
Water has much more to do where it falls. 

In this respect I hope we can devise techniques for urbanizing 
the lessons and methods of the Soil Conservation Service. This will 
require us to expand the provisions of the Watershed Protection and 
Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 566) ; to set up regional versions 


of TVA, systems of small upland reservoirs tied together in remote- 
controlled, automatically regulated systems to retain more waters 
where they fall, to improve the quality of upstream life and the 
amount and purity of downstream waters. 

We should also, in the same vein, promote municipal watersheds, 
holding rainwaters close to where they fall, such as in the water- 
shed protection plans of Newport News, Va., and Atchison, Kans., 
meanwhile providing the kind of recreation places which the New- 
port News plan indicates. 

And, while we are at it, let us stop the senseless pollution of streams 
and erosion of the soils that come from unregulated earth excava- 
tions, by requiring silt-holding basins or ponds as a part of all major 
construction work. We might well follow the example first set here 
in the Washington Metropolitan area, at Dulles Airport. Our urban 
areas are fast becoming the major source of silt that clogs our streams, 
and ought to be better regulated. 

Mr. DWORSKY. The task of achieving the President's goal of a 
beautiful America is not, admittedly, an easy one. One of the most 
difficult parts will be to renew the Nation's waters and waterfronts 
so that they can contribute to his goal. This discussion contains 
four ideas, in furtherance of the President's goal. 

1. The effective management of the Nation's waters and water- 
fronts is a prerequisite if we are to gain the new conservation, the 
objective of which, the President has said, "is not just man's welfare 
but the dignity of man's spirit." 

A major part of this prerequisite action is the control of water 
pollution. But even with pollution controlled partly today or ulti- 
mately tomorrow water and waterfront beauty will demand more 
than just clean water. 

The past third of a century has seen increasing efforts to stop water 
pollution. Comparably, the Nation's major effort to turn the tide 
on city slums also began in the early 1930's. 

The original slum clearance and low cost public housing programs 
of the 1930's have been supplemented today by new and important 
goals. Some of these include the opportunity to remake our cities 
into clean, well-planned, and aesthetically appealing places to work, 
live, and play. Creating beautiful cities has become for many an 
important objective of urban renewal. 

Does "the River Beautiful" with its attendant meaning give us a 
new set of goals for which to strive? If "the City Beautiful" is a 


national goal and it clearly is can our goal for the Nation's waters 
be less? 

I suggest to the conference that the concept of stream renewal, 
used in the same sense as urban renewal, should constitute a major 
goal for the Nation. 

Stream renewal should be a challenging concept to our water and 
land managers both public and private and to those responsible 
for programs involving open space, recreation, industrial parks, solid 
waste disposal, and flood plain and other land zoning programs. 
Stream renewal can provide the central strategic view sought this 
morning by Luther Gulick around which the agencies and the public 
can develop and coordinate many separate programs. It could 
form a major guideline for any new council that might be established. 

2. The concept of stream renewal, however, centers on the control 
of pollution to insure that water is usable and reusable and to support 
the highest development of lands adjoining waterfronts. 

Today we can clean up only part of the pollution of our rivers, 
lakes, and bays at costs presently accepted and using technology pres- 
ently available. I suggest the early use of known and accepted 
waste treatment technology, normally at secondary levels of treat- 
ment. I further suggest that the use of this norm of treatment no 
longer be debated but rather that such treatment be an accepted 
axiom everywhere under conditions which I will describe, if we 
are to have any hope at all of modestly controlling pollution during 
the coming decade. 

The significant advances that have been made in the past decade 
under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 lie in two 
areas; municipal sewage treatment plant construction and the en- 
forcement of pollution abatement on interstate waters. The first 
was due in large measure to a major policy shift which provided for 
the Federal Government to share in the cost of financing sewage 
treatment works. The second was due to the strengthening of the 
Federal role in enforcement without diminishing the possible role 
of the States or interstate agencies. 

For ten years the trend has continued in this direction, with a dou- 
bling and a proposed tripling and quadrupling of the original $50 
million participation by the Federal Government in construction aid. 
Concurrently, amendments in 1961 and in current legislation affirm 
the continuous desire of the Congress to strengthen the Federal en- 
forcement role. 


The obvious meaning of this trend is that the Congress, and the 
people, are not yet satisfied with the attack that has been mounted 
so far against water pollution. Every sign points to greater Federal 

I believe that the single most important fact before us is that our 
present technology-cost posture leaves us incapable of coping ade- 
quately with the total pollution problem as it is now developing and 
as it seems likely to develop in the future decade. 

The alternatives before us, then, are first to place into effect, as 
rapidly as we can, our known technology of sewage and industrial 
waste treatment; and second to establish immediately a new and 
vigorous research and development program to seek a new waste 
treatment technology or significantiy improve our existing tech- 

I believe that our immediate task during the next five to ten years, 
must be to adopt a simple and uncomplicated process for upgrading 
our treatment capability to the level of secondary waste treatment 
the removal of nearly all settleable solids, oils and grease, and a major 
fraction (85-90 percent) of oxygen-consuming organic materials. 

Secondary waste treatment is commonplace today in municipal 
waste treatment systems. Today, more than 70 percent of treatment 
works are of the secondary treatment type, involving 60 percent of 
the urban population provided with treatment works. 

The Federal Government, too, is moving rapidly in some areas to 
bring about the construction of secondary waste treatment works. 
The 1961 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 
for example, provide that water can be stored in Federal reservoirs 
and used to dilute sewage and wastes, but only after "adequate 
treatment" has been provided at the source of pollution. Public 
Health Service policy is to define "adequate treatment" as 85 per- 
cent removal of organic material and essentially all settleable solids, 
or secondary treatment. 

In another action the Federal Government is developing instruc- 
tions for the control of sewage and wastes from 18,000 Federal in- 
stallations. The general rule will require that secondary treatment 
be provided unless it can be demonstrated that less treatment will 

It is my suggestion, therefore, that the Congress consider the es- 
tablishment of a positive national policy, either in a resolution or as 
an amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which 


would set a basic level of secondary treatment as a national floor for 
sewage and industrial waste treatment subject to the following im- 
portant provisions : 

(a) Effective State and interstate agency enforcement of the na- 
tional basic requirement; 

( b ) States or interstate agencies to require more sewage and waste 
treatment where necessary; and to provide for States to allow a lesser 
degree of sewage and waste treatment, where it can be demonstrated 
that a lesser degree of treatment will suffice, for a specified and limited 
time period subject to periodic review by the State; 

(c) State and interstate agencies to submit a new type of State 
plan, under section 5 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
which presently requires the submission of a plan, and which should 
outline a practicable program including a timetable for meeting the 
basic national sewage and waste treatment requirements; 

(d) The agency administering the Federal Water Pollution Con- 
trol Act to continue the present practice of cooperating with the 
States and interstate agencies in the development of an effective plan ; 

(e) Effective backup enforcement by the Federal Government to 
assist State and interstate enforcement efforts. 

It should be clear from the foregoing that the idea of a national 
policy establishing a minimum floor for sewage and waste treatment, 
subject to the specified qualifications, is merely the extension of a 
practice widely used and represents no major innovation. It would, 
in fact, be closing a gap already initiated by the States for a majority 
of the Nation's towns and cities. 

Finally, when we realize that secondary treatment represents the 
practical upper limit for most communities and industries during the 
next decade, the value of the use of a basic treatment requirement 
or floor as a practical and relatively simple administration device 
becomes increasingly evident. 

Questions will arise in connection with the effect of this suggestion 
upon industry. Industrial wastes are not comparable in all respects 
to municipal wastes. The variety and number of the components 
of industrial waste make it impossible to relate secondary treatment 
to all industrial wastes. This should not deter us from requesting 
compliance with a minimum treatment floor for settieable solids 
and organic, oxygen-consuming wastes. Specifications for the bal- 
ance of industrial waste treatment will need to be worked out with 


the appropriate regulatory authority, subject to a timetable and a 
definite program. 

Another question relates to the matter of industry and pollution 
control enforcement. 

The difficulty of achieving enforcement of pollution control by 
States and the need for more effective controls, including the use 
of basic Federal requirements, have been outlined in a report by the 
U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 

The Commission states that : 

. . . serious economical and political repercussions which can re- 
sult from the enforcement of stringent (State regulatory) provisions 
usually means that they are employed relatively rarely. 

The Commission also notes that : 

Perhaps the most potent constraint on State pollution control is 
competition for new industry and the fear of driving existing industries 
from the State. Industry, fearing the loss of competitive positions if 
required to make up the tremendous backlog of industrial waste 
treatment, often has threatened to move. Differentials among the 
States in standards and levels of enforcement make these threats 

If we as a Nation are to come anywhere near the goals that we 
have set for ourselves in achieving clean water, we will need to look 
equally to major policy adjustments in cost sharing, for industries 
as well as municipalities, to the use of common facilities, and to new 
technological advances both in industrial processes as well as in 
waste treatment technology. This will be necessary if we are to be 
realistic in the demands that may be placed upon the industrial seg- 
ment of our society. The revised cost-sharing formulas proposed by 
Governor Rockefeller and endorsed unanimously by the New York 
State Legislature can be a guide to new State-Federal views on this 

The suggestions in this part are concerned with strengthening the 
roles of both the States and the Federal Government; of providing 
an effective alternate to the proposals presently before the Congress 
and offering a means of maintaining a more balanced Federal-State 
relationship during the next period in this continuous effort against 
water pollution. 

3. For tomorrow and the longer future we will be able to control 
pollution effectively to make water a contributor to national beauty, 
and health and economic welfare only if we make rapid progress 


in developing a new waste treatment technology or increase sig- 
nificantly the effectiveness of present technology. If we do not have 
this advance in technology, we will not be able to control pollution. 

While the Federal water pollution research program has been 
growing in many respects during the last several years, the amount 
available for research aimed at new technological developments has 
been severely limited. In this vital area the annual current budget 
is probably about $ 1 1 / 2 million. 

There is need now for advanced waste treatment technology. My 
guess is that by 1975 we will be in very great need for a new tech- 
nology in most parts of the Nation. 

The research and development program that is called for will 
require major participation by American industry and universities. 
This new type of R. & D. program may require new arrangements 
for financing industry's participation. 

The key issue, however, is to broaden as quickly as possible the 
base of investigations at a much higher probably not less than $10- 
$15 million annually level of expenditure. This aspect of the na- 
tional program is late now and further delay will require higher 
annual outlays in the future. 

4. The strength of a society such as ours rests on a well-informed 
people. The public has indicated, in thousands of communities 
across the land, a strong willingness to do what they have been asked 
to do by their State and city officials to control pollution. More will 
be demanded of them in future years. 

If we are going to ask much more of them there must be expecta- 
tion that what we are seeking can be achieved. The people should 
have some prototypes demonstrating the achievable. 

Nowhere, to my knowledge, do we have a satisfactory basinwide 
cleanup to the extent currently possible for pollution control to which 
our people can point and say here, in reality, is our objective. The 
President has pointed the way in his comments concerning the Po- 
tomac as a demonstration for the Nation's Capital. We can use an 
effective demonstration program in every major section of the Na- 
tion perhaps a dozen. This type of demonstration program ought 
to be pursued vigorously by the States, interstate agencies, Federal 
agencies, industries, cities, and land managers working in concert. 

Mr. WIRTH. Water and valleys have been for years and still are 
the main routes of travel. They have made great contributions to 
the development of the Nation. People tend to congregate on the 


shores of all types of bodies of water. It is interesting to note that 
the 24 metropolitan areas with populations of a million or more are 
located on rivers, lakes, and oceans. Water frontage is by far our 
most expensive and most sought after real estate and it is in short 

Water is a vital element; not only is it essential to human life, 
but it provides the aesthetic and recreational needs of our people. 
It helps create, and is an important part of, our environment. 

Yet it has been the most abused of our resources. We dump into 
it everything we do not want. Cities and towns use it as part of 
their sewage systems. Industry fills our rivers and lakes with waste 
materials, chemicals, and refuse. We destroy the natural watersheds 
with bulldozers. In many cases the Federal Government has created 
graveyards for ships in some of the most scenic sections of our rivers. 

We allow commercial developments and residential communities 
to be constructed on natural flood plains and then expend untold 
millions of dollars on flood disaster relief. 

We permit private exploitation of coastal barrier sand dunes 
only to have homes and towns washed away, along with what is 
left of the coastal barrier sand dunes. Then, following storms, we 
expend millions trying to reclaim the sand dunes and provide relief 
for those who were responsible for their destruction. 

These are the conditions. While there is an awakening and a 
growing awareness of the problem, no adequate solution has yet 
been developed. 

I realize research must go on in these things, but there are certain 
steps we must take right now and I have four suggestions to make. 

I propose : 

1. That a pollution abatement tax of 1 mill be levied on every 
gallon of contaminated water that is dumped into our streams, rivers, 
lakes, bays, and oceans; that 75 percent of the funds that result be 
set aside for research and the cleaning up of our waters and prevent- 
ing further pollution. This should produce several billion dollars 
a year. Matched in part by State and local funds from bond issues, 
backed perhaps by a similar tax, this measure would go a long way 
toward pollution abatement over a period of ten years. 

2. That 25 percent of the above pollution abatement tax money be 
used to purchase rights that would prevent undesirable uses of flood 
plains and barrier dunes and would provide access rights to 10 percent 
of our shores. This would include streams, rivers, lakes, bays, and 


ocean fronts. This action would not be in conflict with the objec- 
tives of the Land and Water Act, as this is an access and protection 
right and would not prevent other uses compatible with these rights ; 
the Land and Water Act provides for the purchase and development 
of park and recreation areas. 

3. That a plan be worked out with the States to set up watershed 
protection areas; and that over-all valley zoning regulations be estab- 
lished which will provide land use controls whether Federal, State, 
or private land to insure protection against pollution of streams, 
rivers, and lakes through land erosion and other land misuses. 

4. That there be established a Federal Water Control Commis- 
sion that would pass on all manmade devices associated with water 
impoundments, diversions, and other unnatural uses of our rivers and 
streams to insure that all economic and human needs and uses are 
fully considered and protected before any such project is under- 
taken. This Commission would be made up of officials and citizen 
members and their decision would be final and they could only be 
vetoed by an act of Congress. 

These suggestions are based on the principle that all navigable 
waters are a natural resource under Federal control. It is a respon- 
sibility of the Federal Government to show leadership and to take 
the necessary steps to protect this essential natural resource. Surely 
we cannot achieve the greatest natural beauty potential when our 
streams, rivers, lakes, bays, and ocean shores are being used as sewage 
disposal facilities and their inherent scenic grandeur ravaged by man. 
The suggestions are also based on the principle that the user pays 
the bill which is now a well established principle, such as our highway 
funds, and Land and Water Act, just to name a few. 

Representative DINGELL. My friend, Senator Hart, expresses his 
regrets but the voting rights bill precludes his presence here today. 
I am reading the paper prepared by Senator Hart. The subject 
assigned the Senator today was the question of acquisition of needed 
waterfront areas for recreation purposes. Throughout the com- 
ments you heard by the other panelists today, you note there is a 
need for haste. In this area there is also a need for haste. 

In introducing one of the shorelines preservation bills eight or 
ten years ago, I found there was a third of an inch of shoreline space 
per person across the country. With the land use and erosion and 
the American bulldozer, the figure has declined since that time. 

Now, let me read the Senator's statement. 


Statement of Senator HART. In this setting there is no need to 
argue the case for the acquisition of needed waterfront areas for 
recreation purposes. Everyone in this room is well aware of the 
findings of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission 
Report and the many other studies which call attention to our vanish- 
ing shoreline. 

The point I would hope to make here today is that, although the 
case for action has been made over and over again, we are not moving 
fast enough. Every day that passes, additional stretches of shoreline 
disappear from public view behind the "Private Property No Tres- 
passing" signs. 

It is truly a case, as the Pennsylvania Dutch say, of "The faster I go, 

Or, as one of my constituents wrote me, our Michigan slogan 
"Water Wonderland" will soon be all too true the average man will 
wonder where the water is. 

The States are slow in reacting to the need because of lack of finan- 
cial resources. The Congress, while making some notable progress 
on acquisition of areas of national significance, has not yet saved some 
of our last remaining beautiful shorelines. Will we ever be able to 
save Indiana Dunes, Oregon Dunes, our Sleeping Bear Dunes in 
Michigan, and Assateague? 

In addition to the obvious political problems which are difficult if 
not impossible to straighten out, there are always powerful voices of 
one sort or another seeking to bring us to a screeching halt. 

No one wants to railroad through the Congress a measure of the 
dimensions of these shoreline bills. Many people are affected, and we 
must be responsive to their concern. But while we labor over these 
proposals ad infinitum, they begin to price themselves out of our 

Let me sound a note of warning on the price situation. At home 
in Michigan the property owners at Sleeping Bear are even as you 
and I would be worried whether they will receive adequate com- 
pensation for their property if they decide to sell. Actually, all our 
experience is that the price of land within these recreation areas rises 
so substantially that we may as a nation and as taxpayers find our- 
selves barred from Federal acquisition. 

To illustrate. My information is that Point Reyes in California, 
for which we planned to spend $14 million in acquisition, may cost 
$40 million ; Padre Island in Texas is likely to go up from $5 million 
to $16 million; Cape Cod from $16 million to $35 or $40 million. 


When you consider that the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 
in which we have taken so much comfort, will make available on an 
average $200 million a year, of which $80 million a year will be 
available to the Federal Government, we can appreciate the bind we 
will shortly be in if our shoreline acquisitions are going to run at $40 
to $50 million each. 

Those of us on the panel were asked to avoid a recitation of the 
problem, and to move to recommendations for action. 

1 . Clearly my first recommendation and I hope, as the sponsor of 
both the Sleeping Bear and Pictured Rocks proposals, I am not being 
too self-serving would be that the Congress act as promptly as 
possible to save as many of the remaining areas as possible. 

2. Second, we need to take a very good look at land presently under 
Federal ownership to be sure we don't turn loose any that might serve 
for recreation. 

3. Third, we will probably have to develop soon less expensive 
means of acquisition. These might include : 

(a) Reviving the good old-fashioned custom of people giving 
land to the Federal Government, such as was done in the Great 
Smokies National Park. Here, very real tax incentives might be 
devised ; 

(b) Developing a combination of smaller Federal acreage sur- 
rounded by a "buffer zone" where either scenic easements or con- 
trolled use, such as we have evolved at Pictured Rocks, could preserve 
the scenic and recreation values; 

(c) Permitting the National Park Service to acquire option on 
tracts pending Congressional action on the authorizing legislation; 

(d) Encouraging the private conservation foundations to use 
their funds to take option on tracts when the first steps are taken 
toward Federal acquisition, thus holding the cost within bounds; 

(e) And finally, of course, urging the States to move as rapidly 
as they are able, particularly where this would result in lower cost. 

Perhaps one or more of these steps, combined with more vigorous 
land use planning and zoning, will help us preserve some of the 
beauty we have inherited. 

Particularly will this be necessary, in my opinion, as we move ahead 
with a national system of scenic roads and parkways. We must not 
permit ribbons of concrete to be strung along our presently remote 
shorelines, destroying the very scenery we seek to enjoy. And more 


than a "corridor" needs to be preserved ; clearly it is going to be neces- 
sary to write the authorizing legislation in such a fashion as to require 
State and local land use planning to protect the natural beauty in 
some depth. 

In all these matters, I trust we will act promptly, with wisdom and 
courage, that those who inherit this land from us will not judge us 

Representative DINGELL. I would like to conclude with a few re- 
marks of my own. I suspect everyone in this room has reason to 
judge our forebears very harshly for the mess they left us. The fact 
we have what we have remaining to us in this country is attributed to 
the Almighty who bestowed on our forebears not very long past one 
of the most bounteous lands as has yet been found by mankind. 
There remains both little time and little in the way of resources to 
preserve it. 

Mr. Dworsky said we should plan for secondary treatment of our 
pollution. As one from the Congress who has worked on this sub- 
ject, I would like to comment briefly. There are some specific 
legislative proposals pending before the Congress which would in- 
crease the amount of Federal grants to be supported by State and 
local matching funds for sewage treatment works from $ 1 00 million 
to $150 million; which would provide for the use of subpoena in 
water pollution abatement; and which would establish either water 
pollution criteria for the States in the House bill, which is deficient 
in this particular, or Federal water pollution standards in the Sen- 
ate bill, which is a superior proposal. Mr. Dworsky seems to have 
come forward with what may well be a very useful resolution to the 
problem that exists between the House and Senate with regard to 
this particular bill. 

The issue that I choose to take with Mr. Dworsky is that we are 
going to find by the year 2000 that secondary treatment is not ade- 
quate. We will find in most instances that secondary treatment in 
the immediate, foreseeable future is going to leave such a bountiful 
supply of phosphate and nitrates that waters are going to be subject 
to noxious algal growth. There are right now plants in existence 
whose effluent can be drunk safely and which contribute a minimum 
amount of algal growth. Indeed, there is one in the Eastern United 
States which runs right into a reservoir of one of our major cities 
with no hazard either to the quality of the reservoir or ultimate purity 
of the water that comes out of the tap. 


In the resolution of the problem of water pollution, or the problem 
of acquisition of land, or any of the other things we have to face 
we better think big. What I say is this. Let us not just think in 
terms of secondary treatment. Let us not just think in terms of re- 
search. Let us think about a meaningful program on the Federal 
and State level. And, I would like to point out, there is not a State 
water pollution control agency anywhere in the boundaries of the 
Continental United States which is doing the kind of job it should 
be doing. Unless they buckle down, the States are going to find 
that we in Congress who feel the only way that this matter can be 
handled is by a vigorous Federal program are going to increasingly 
succeed and are going to find the abatement of water pollution will 
be conducted, at least on navigable waters, by the Federal Govern- 

Mr. TUNNARD. The short paper outlined here will stress scenic and 
cultural possibilities of water and waterfronts, leaving the grave prob- 
lems of pollution, erosion, and loss of wildlife to more qualified con- 
tributors. The paper will stress the importance of the waterfront 
as part of the national patrimony, in an attempt to correct the current 
image of it as a refuse dump for objectionable land uses. 

Since I am a city planner, the paper will give more attention to 
urban waterfronts in the built-up and often decayed parts of our 

The solutions will stress the use of historic and scenic preservation 
methods, public and private, coupled with upgraded technology and 
new governmental strategies. 

Think of an urban waterfront river, lake, or ocean and be 
reminded of its blighted condition. It is a refuse dump, perhaps, the 
garbage filling in the space between rotting piers, where once proud 
clipper ships or river steamers rode the ways. Or, lately, some huge 
new installation like a powerplant or a nest of oil storage tanks may 
have been erected on new fill, blocking off the view of the water. 
Or, equally bulky and also noisy, a giant freeway may interrupt the 
prospect, with its thousands of shiny automobiles and trailer trucks. 
Access will also be blocked; and in many American cities, the resi- 
dents are scarcely aware that their city is water-based. They are, 
in 1965, conditioned to travelling many miles for a glimpse of open 
water. The 2 -year battle that was recently fought and won for 
Breezy Point Park in New York City, the last new beach available to 


subway riders, is an example of the energy that must be put into 
claiming waterfronts for the public. 

Paradoxically, the very existence of decay on the waterfront gives 
Americans a second chance to improve its appearance and amenities. 
Although there is still competition for land on the water's edge, the 
existence of decay is evidence that certain older uses are no longer 
necessary there and that we should be thinking seriously of the kind 
of uses which should replace them. Some older harbor cities no 
longer consider the harbor as part of their economy long-range 
truck transportation has been a major factor here and the result 
is that refuse and objectionable land uses like wrecking yards find 
their way to the shoreline. 

There is already in existence a trend to reclaim those areas for com- 
munity use. The new Liberty State Park (part of the Statue of 
Liberty National Monument in New York Harbor ) will be designed 
on the site of old wharves and ancient industries in Jersey City. It 
will be the only waterfront park on that stretch of upper New York 

Why should not the new land uses at the waterfront provide an 
amenity rather than a hazard to health or an eyesore? If the econ- 
omy no longer requires so much industry or commerce on the water- 
front, why cannot we consider it for more pleasurable uses? The 
answer is: we can. Our urban waterfronts can be treated as a 
new resource for the economy of leisure. But there must be safe- 
guards, or they will be despoiled all over again in the very name of 
the public. Of this, more anon. 

The San Francisco waterfront provides an illustration of the pos- 
sibilities of reclamation. There are piers all the way around from 
Fisherman's Wharf to the China Basin. They were built in a gener- 
ation when visions of expanding world trade coupled with an al- 
ready obsolete docking technology led shipping and port authorities 
to "cover the waterfront" with these facilities. 

Today, one marginal berthing facility of sufficient width could 
accommodate all the ocean-going ships ever to be found at one time 
in San Francisco Bay. 

San Francisco's Marine Museum at the Embarcadero, with its six 
vessels giving a realistic picture of life aboard ship in former times, 
shows what can be done by private enterprise in an educational way. 
New York City has as yet nothing like this. The idea of recreational 
piers put forward by Jane Jacobs for the latter city deserves imple- 

779-59565 11 


mentation. Here recreational programs could join hands with his- 
toric preservation, saving for posterity the Chelsea Piers built for 
Mayor McClellan by the noted architect, Whitney Warren. 

A combination of technical know-how and local-to-State govern- 
ment strategy is necessary to renovate our waterfronts. The inertia 
of years and of obsolete institutions must be overcome. Further, the 
existence of rotting piers and abandoned ferry slips has encouraged 
inappropriate commercial enterprise to fill land and even to make 
new islands in historic harbors. On these reclaimed areas (some 
of them provided by Federal dredging operations) motel-marina 
developments are promoted, with free public access banned. Some 
of them are even braving existing conditions of pollution in order 
to stake their claim. 

Not only new commercial facilities, but new industrial and public 
utilities projects are underway on waterfront land. Many of these 
are only there because public regulations have not been devised to 
keep them away. For example, although oil is still brought in by 
ship on much of our coastline, the new pipelines have made it un- 
necessary for oil storage tanks to be located exclusively on the water- 
front. Where it must be carried by ship, oil can be pumped inland 
to more suitable locations in many areas. 

Similarly, long-term land contract agreements could insure the re- 
moval of scrap metal yards on waterfront land ( a common present- 
day use ) , with a view to future inland location or to coming advance 
in technology demanding less space. We should not be thinking 
of renovating our coasts in short-term measures. They are worth 
considerable negotiation and trouble. 

Meanwhile, new highways are usurping the best waterfront sites, 
much as the railroads did in the 1 9th century. A spectacular example 
is the area of Harlem west of Broadway between 125th and 135th 
Streets which is losing its view of the river with the addition of three 
highway viaducts. 

Recommendations for various types of action occur below : 

1. To insure the urban waterfront becoming a cultural resource, 
establish urban waterfront districts along the lines of the soil conserva- 
tion districts, set up by the States and counties. These to be staffed 
and funded from Washington, and to include in a planning staff an 
architectural historian, a biologist, city planner, park planner, etc. 
The districts would not replace port authorities, which are not 
concerned with scenic character, but supplement their activities. It 


is possible that they might have a task force character and turn over 
their functions to existing county or State planning bodies. 

2. The urban waterfront districts should establish scenic zones 
on the lines of Item 16 in UNESCO'S "Recommendation concern- 
ing the Safeguarding of the Beauty and Character of Landscapes 
and Sites," December 11, 1962. In these zones permission would 
have to be obtained for new installations, including highways. 

3. Historic district legislation should be applied to waterfront 
land wherever appropriate. For example, when Brooklyn Navy 
Yard is given over to a new use, the Admiral's house, the Martin 
Thompson Hospital and a surrounding historic area should be pre- 
served for the public, since for a long time, beginning with the assem- 
bling of the Monitor, the history of this area has been the history of 
the U.S. Navy. 

In some waterfront situations, linear historic districts can be estab- 
lished. In all cases the planning district, as my colleague, Harold 
Wise, has suggested, should be at least six blocks deep, to allow for 
consolidation of existing railroad uses, etc. 

4. County boards of supervisors should refuse permits for shore- 
line development unless sewerage is taken care of by the developers. 
Example: The current activities of the gambling and subdivision 
promotion dynasty on the south shore of Lake Tahoe, which are 
turning the lake into a sewer. 

5. New installations of public utilities and water-needing indus- 
tries, not to mention the high-rise apartments which threaten historic 
scenic areas like the Annapolis waterfront, require coordinated plan- 
ning on the part of regional authorities. In many cases, they do 
not belong on the urban waterfront at all. Think what this means 
when it is admitted that the urban shore of Connecticut now extends 
from the New York State line to New Haven. The historic district, 
which can save 18th century harbors like Greenwich, and pleasant 
19th century fishing villages like Stonington, cannot be expected to 
do the whole job in these cases. 

The real significance of the conflict between scenic preservation- 
ists and Consolidated Edison in the New York region is that this pub- 
lic utility serves 10 million now, and that the population of this area 
will probably increase by 80 percent by the year 2000. Regional 
planning boards which do not replace but are superimposed upon 
existing levels of administration are badly needed in these areas. 
They can be formed of associations of local governments, with demo- 


cratic representation. In some matters they should be empowered 
to deal directly with Washington. 

This is not the occasion on which to describe a regional authority. 
I would merely add that private corporations might assist in the 
location process by hiring environmental designers and wildlife ex- 
perts on their own staffs. 

To end with a slogan : Access to urban waterfront, both physically 
and visually, will give our citizens that sense of enlarged freedom, 
which, exactly 100 years ago, Frederick Law Olmsted claimed for 
the U.S. public park movement. 

Mr. FEISS. Urban water must become an accepted part 
of our inalienable rights in the pursuit of happiness and life. Our 
designs must contribute to happiness or they are worthless. There- 
fore, the urban water part of such designs should take advantage 
of all urban water opportunities at any scale and of any kind, be 
they natural or manmade, be they seashore, river or lake, marinas, 
fountains, ponds or any combination of these. 

In all great cities of the world and in many small ones, from 
Peking or Stockholm to Viterbo, wherever water could be made 
available it has been used in the city planning process for utility and 
enjoyment. In the United States only three major cities have made 
superlative use of their urban water resources for beauty and recrea- 
tion. They are: Chicago, with its magnificent Lake Michigan 
waterfront parks; Minneapolis, with its wonderful chain of in-city 
lakes, and San Antonio, with its delightful downtown river. Curi- 
ously, although these examples have existed for years, their influence 
has been minimal. 

The tradition of urban water design over a period of the last 65 
or 75 years has been slow in building up, with lack of recognition 
of the advantages of some of the great work that has been done in 
the past. There are, however, exciting new urban water programs 
in a number of our cities, and these are well worth watching. Re- 
cent waterfront improvements are noteworthy in Detroit, Cleveland, 
Boston, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and others. 

Most American cities either are indifferent or apparently power- 
less to combat ugliness of urban water or the destruction of already 
created values. I sincerely regret, and this has been mentioned 
earlier, that the highway designers and the highway planners are 
elsewhere engaged this afternoon. For instance, Metropolitan 
Cleveland has been desperately trying to save the lovely chain of 


Shaker Lake parks. At any moment a major superhighway may go 
down the center of these lakes and destroy them. This common 
danger is found in places too numerous to mention, and highways 
have irrevocably polluted innumerable urban shorelines. 

City after city is losing course to the new autocrats in our de- 
mocracy. ( I somewhat hesitate to contradict our beloved First Lady 
who said there is no longer autocracy here.) Somehow we must 
equate human values with natural values, monetary values, and 

Is there a computer capable of so doing? I say, no, and I say that 
we cannot continue to lose ground on open space and urban waters 
to incompatible and all-devouring use. 

I urge the Federal Government to recognize what its various hands 
are doing. I urge the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, the Housing 
and Home Finance Agency, and the various Federal highway, power, 
conservation, and other interests to get together and present to the 
general public a unified action program which will state that our 
all too pitiful open space capital be preserved and helped by them. 

The present reign of terror must be stopped forever. 

I urge the President to note this serious domestic problem. 

In passing, we cannot fail to mention the temptations to the 
State and the local levels when the goal of Federal aid is temptingly 

Urban based metropolitan park systems with ocean, lake, and 
stream orientation will be found in Washington, D.G., Boston, New 
York City, Cleveland, and others, but nowhere enough for present 
or future populations. Vastly enlarged urban service open space 
programs using stream systems and water bodies are imperative. 

Decorative uses of water in American cities are growing in urban 
design importance. The older great fountains in Orlando, Chicago, 
and Philadelphia are having influence but the newer downtown 
mall fountains and pools included also in central city renewal projects 
are encouraging. 

As recommended in the Community Renewal Plan financed by 
the Urban Renewal Administration of the Housing and Home 
Finance Agency, the city of Rochester, N.Y., has just published the 
first municipally financed complete inner-city river inventory and 
improvement study for the Genesee. Urban renewal powers will 
be used in Rochester in selected riverfront areas. In New Bedford, 
Boston, Philadelphia, New Haven, Annapolis, Buffalo, Louisville, 
Nashville, Baltimore, Georgetown, District of Columbia, and others, 


renewal is being effectively used or proposed for waterfront beautifi- 
cations and improvements. 

These program requirements are suggested: 

1. Needed on a national scale are inventories and design plans 
as part of general plans and urban designs for all city, town, and 
village waterfronts and water area designs. Federal and State financ- 
ing of such inventories and design plans will be essential. 

2. Urban renewal powers should be used on an extended scale 
for creation of new inner-city parks and waterfront improvements. 
Financing of major improvements such as flood control dams, dikes, 
retaining walls and landscaping will need Federal aid. Grants for 
urban beautification in the pending Housing Act of 1965 should 
clearly include shorelines and water bodies as open space and public 

3. Urban metropolitan river systems such as the Hudson or the 
Delaware from Trenton, N.J., to Wilmington, Del., or the San 
Francisco Bay area should be planned for multipurpose uses with 
appearance, recreation, and utility in balance. Federal and State 
aid will be essential both for planning and effectuation. 

4. Preservation of all historic values in waterfronts is essential 
as in New Bedford, Annapolis, Savannah, and New Orleans. Here 
again, renewal powers are either essential or desirable. 

5. The urbanizing ocean coasts, Great Lakes shores, and major 
river systems require landscape protection and beautification which 
must be added to Federal legislation for river basin commissions 
and the establishment of a national water resources council as per 
multipurpose planning policy procedures recommended by the Presi- 
dent's Water Resources Council in May 1962 and current legislative 

6. New urban coasts as in Connecticut, Florida, and southern Cali- 
fornia are essential to maximize water usage and improve appearance 
of water bodies, provide storm control, bathing, boating, and wild- 
life protection. 

7. Pollution elimination is universally mandatory. Federal and 
State laws and financial aid are required. All urban rivers should 
be clean enough for swimming. 

8. National harbors and ports are a disgrace. Cleanup and re- 
building programs are imperative to promote efficiency, beauty and 

These methods are suggested: 


1. Continuing national review of all current Federal, State, and 
local legislation and budgets relating to above requirements. 

2. Legislative drafting systems to meet inadequacies of current 

3. Organization of special interest groups for promotion of pro- 
grams, including all related professional organizations. 

4. Research, design experiments and competitions, public educa- 

There are currently before Congress, several legislative programs 
which specifically relate to our interest this afternoon. There is 
S. 21 or H.R. 1111, a bill providing for the optimum development 
of the Nation's natural resources through the coordinated planning 
of water and related resources, through the establishment of a Water 
Resources Council and River Basin Planning Commissions and 
through providing financial assistance to the States in order to in- 
crease State participation in such planning. The United States 
has been divided into river basins which these river basin com- 
missions will supervise. 

The law does not specifically state as yet that beautification is a 
major and essential function of any of these commissions. I want 
to urge that the pending legislation be amended or clarified so that 
the sections dealing with river basin commissions and their func- 
tions will go beyond and I am quoting here "the preparing 
and keeping up to date of a comprehensive, joint plan for Federal, 
State, and local and nongovernmental resources," and so on. For 
the collection of data, planning, and construction of projects, I urge 
that the purpose of this conference be instilled into this legislation. 

My recommendations for programs are based somewhat on that, 
and the other pending bill that Mr. Slayton mentioned this morning, 
the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 and section 805 
which provides for urban beautification and improvement. This 
bill, as it is presently written, and it has just been reported out of the 
House committee, provides for Federal aid for the beautification of 
land and the comprehensive plan development of a locality for the 
greater use and enjoyment of open space and other public lands 
in urban areas. Of course, nothing could be more important, but 
the law, as presently written, does not include an open space on 
waterfronts or water areas, and I urge that we seriously consider 
and recommend to the appropriate Members of Congress and to the 
President that this be clarified so there is no question that water- 
fronts and land are included in this beautification and improvement 


program. We should make certain that we get started this year 
on this program. 

Mr. CAULFIELD. I have been asked to speak this afternoon con- 
cerning the Federal, State, and local planning process as envisioned 
by legislation about to be passed, from the point of view of getting 
all the values that we seek in our society fulfilled through this water 
and related land planning device. 

My colleagues this afternoon have made specific suggestions for 
beautification and greater direct human use of urban waterfronts 
along rivers, lakes, harbors, and seacoast. This residential, recrea- 
tional, scenic, fish and wildlife use of such water-related land areas 
is in direct conflict with long-standing use of waterfronts as indus- 
trial locations, railroad terminals and navigation ports. 

Also, as urban areas expand, the issue arises as to the appropriate 
use of stretches of rivers that will be urban 50 or 60 years from now. 
For example, as metropolitan Washington expands this would in- 
volve the Potomac between here and Harpers Ferry. Urban areas, 
now and in the future, are parts of large river basins. What we 
need, as I see it, is much better and more intensive Federal, State, 
and local comprehensive planning to obtain the type of well-planned 
action that participants in this conference so greatly desire. 

On the Potomac, as President Johnson has directed, we are con- 
ducting a special planning effort to make it a model of conservation 
for the whole country. But, more broadly, we are on the threshold 
of greatly improved water and related land resource basin planning 
throughout the country. Now in conference between the House of 
Representatives and the Senate, and expected to pass soon, is the 
Water Resources Planning Act which Mr. Feiss has already made 
reference to. Under title II of that act, Federal-State River Basin 
Planning Commissions can be established, chaired by an appointee 
of the President and on which the Federal agencies concerned and 
the States will be represented. 

The traditional Federal involvement in rivers has been principally 
in developing them for water supply, flood control, navigation, 
power, and more recently pollution control. Now the related land 
areas can come into their own, as I see it. First, we have the finan- 
cial help provided by last year's enactment of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund to provide funds for land acquisition. We have 
the Open Space Act and the amendments which will broaden and 
strengthen it. We are getting a new focus on urban renewal, hope- 


fully, from this conference. There are the proposed landscaping 
enhancement proposals before the Congress, to which reference has 
already been made. These, of course, are worthy of your support. 

I would refer also to the Wild Rivers bill. The Wild Rivers bill 
is not just concerned with the wilderness areas of our country. It 
has advanced sharply the concept of alternative use of rivers for 
scenic beauty versus storage for uses such as water supply, flood con- 
trol, and power. Experience on rivers such as the Hudson and St. 
Croix has shown the need for this. 

It is an essential fact of planning that we plan for alternatives. In 
this way the public can express its desire, where for example, the 
cheaper plans might desecrate beauty. But water-related land will 
never be properly planned, if State and local governments are not 
full partners in the planning process. This is the importance, as I 
see it, of title II of the Water Resources Planning Act, for it is they 
who must plan to make specific renewal of waterfront lands. 

Under our constitutional system it cannot be the Federal bureau- 
crats who do the specific planning for waterfront lands. It must 
be non-Federal people working on the subject. It is the State and 
local function to zone industrial location from the standpoint of scenic 
beauty and from the point of view of handling the pollution prob- 
lem, both air and water. It is they who must regulate urban and 
suburban erosion of land as a source of pollution. It cannot be the 
Federal Government. Pollution control generally, including sewage 
treatment, is a local function supplemented on interstate and navi- 
gational bases by Federal law. It is very important to always remem- 
ber that State and local governments must provide, one way or 
another, the organized source to meet the reimbursement require- 
ments of the Federal Government for many developments which are 
provided under Federal legislation. 

Not only do Federal, State, and local governments require an 
official planning environment as provided under title II of the Water 
Resources Planning Act, but the private groups will become even 
more important than ever in the past, by reason of the concerns of 
this conference. It is only private groups which are organized in 
the community to recognize the values of wild rivers, or scenic beauty, 
or recreational requirements for clean water. They provide a con- 
sciousness in the basin and in the city of these values. It is through 
them that these values are discussed in the newspapers and elsewhere. 
It is only in this environment that the Federal, State, and local gov- 


ernment planners can be responsive in preparing alternative plans 
that could possibly meet these very needs of the people in the 

It is not only on the Potomac where we have a historic problem, 
for 50 years, of considering how the river should be used. Right now, 
as many of you know, San Francisco Bay may be filled in and a large 
residential development established. In San Francisco Bay, unless 
these questions of alternative use of the area as a scenic and recrea- 
tional resource are fully discussed and private people participate 
along with the government planners, we will have a result which I 
am sure many of us would not want 50 years from now. 

The Great Lakes are another area of great concern where this type 
of Federal, State, and local planning is required. The hopeful de- 
velopment in Jersey City towards turning waterfront areas into park- 
lands associated with the Statue of Liberty is a beginning in the way 
of waterfront renovation. 

I suggest that we, at Federal, State, local, and private levels, are 
on the threshold of new opportunity with the Water Resources 
Planning Act. I trust that we will all support this type of endeavor 
to realize all the values that can be achieved from our water and 
related land, not only for the waterfront but for the whole basin 
in each of our river basins. 

Representative BOLTON. First, I want to thank Mr. Feiss for 
mentioning Shaker Lakes in Cleveland. They are the last bit of 
beauty we have left and the unconscionable engineers are consider- 
ing putting a highway through them, just to let a few people get to 
the bus a little faster. We feel poisonous about that. 

It is also very good to note that the President has called for the 
Potomac to be the model for the various things that we all hope will 
be accomplished. 

It is especially good having this conference put emphasis on new 
methods. We can no longer use the old ways, when preservation of 
natural beauty was primarily in private hands. I am happy to be 
able to bring to you something of a new method which has been 

The decade ending this month has been one of incredible change 
in the preservation-conservation movement. 

My task today is to report to you on that change as we, in the 
Accokeek Foundation have lived through it, and to indicate the new 
areas of change we see ahead. 


As an example, let us take the events as they have evolved concern- 
ing the most famous of our national shrines, Mount Vernon, the 
home of our first President, George Washington. 

A decade ago, we set out to protect the visual environment of 
Mount Vernon, America's No. 1 historical shrine. 

Up to that time, preservation was primarily in private hands. 
For example, a century ago, Mount Vernon itself was offered to both 
the Federal Government and the State of Virginia for preservation. 
Both refused. 

A frail woman, Ann Pamela Cunningham, undertook the task, 
created the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association of the Union. This 
private group purchased and still preserves this national shrine. 

Miss Cunningham's parting injunction was, "Let one spot in this 
grand country of ours be saved from change. Upon you rests this 

In 1955 the Maryland shore opposite Mount Vernon was threat- 
ened with the wave of expansion from the District of Columbia. 

An oil tank farm was projected for the shoreline in the center 
of the view that thrills millions of visitors each year. 

As Vice Regent from Ohio of the Mount Vernon Ladies' As- 
sociation, I accepted Miss Cunningham's charge, and I used some 
funds which had come to me by inheritance to acquire the property 
to preserve it. 

This was just the beginning. During the next few years, additional 
land was acquired by the Accokeek Foundation, and others came 
to our aid. 

Then the unthinking local agency, armed with the power of 
eminent domain, determined to condemn the land we sought to 
preserve to use for a sewage treatment plant and its attendant de- 

No private entity could withstand that threat. We had to seek 
government help. 

No help was available from local or State governments. This 
forced the Congress to counter the local threat. In 1 96 1 the area was 
delineated as a national park, based on lands to be donated by the 
foundations along the riverfront, and donations by private owners 
of science easements on a much greater area. 

Skeptics in government predicted freely that no scenic easements 
by the average citizens would ever be donated. They stated outright 


that government purchase was the only solution which had ever 

In this day of big government and big corporations, it sometimes 
seems that the individual has become superfluous, and the great 
engines of government and corporations will replace him. But our 
project created a place for the individual. I am proud to report 
that the owners of 120 parcels of land have voluntarily donated 
scenic easements on their own properties to make the project possible. 

This is the greatest joining together of private, foundation, and 
governmental effort in such an undertaking. 

In recognition of the generosity of private landowners' contri- 
butions, the State of Maryland has pioneered tax reform legislation 
to encourage donation of easements. To make this possible, it was 
necessary to amend the State constitution, pass statewide policy legis- 
lation, and then to amend the State Tax Code, and ultimately to 
change the county codes. But this model tax reform which brings 
local tax and natural beauty policies into harmony, is now well on 
its way to completion, for all to examine. 

Our task is far from finished. But we have explored some exciting 
new roads. The inquiries which come to us from many States in our 
Union, and from foreign lands, show the rising interests in these 
new looks of preservation, and the part the individual can play. 
The officials of the executive departments, who jeered at our efforts, 
now cheerfully follow the path. 

I have often felt there will never be enough money in the public 
treasury to do all that is necessary for preservation and conservation 
of natural beauty. But there is no limit to what imaginative pro- 
grams utilizing new approaches to public and private cooperation 
can do. 

The experience of our first decade is heartening proof of this belief. 

Because we had a problem which could not be solved by existing 
methods and could not wait, we had to pioneer some of these new 
techniques of preservation. We have made only a beginning. 

The next step is clear. This White House conference must now 
call for a major effort to develop the tremendous potential locked 
up in new types of public-private cooperation. Through this effort, 
we can, and will, evolve new and better tools for preservation and 
conservation, on a much broader base. 

We of the Accokeek Foundation are ready to help to the best of 
our ability if you do your part. 


Questions and Discussion 

HAROLD WISE. I want to make some remarks about the Army 
Corps of Engineers. I think it is high time that we stopped toler- 
ating the shocking and brutal actions of the Army Corps of Engineers. 

I did a redevelopment planning job in the downtown, central 
area of Santa Cruz, Calif., about ten years ago. This area was less 
than a mile from the ocean and a part of a major seaside resort. 
They had had a flood and the Corps was improving the channel 
of the San Lorenzo River through the middle of the project. We 
wanted to take advantage of this opportunity and to make a pleasant 
and attractive park around the river. We proposed a grass lined 
channel as wide as necessary for flood control purposes but we lost 
the battle to the riprap-efficiency boys of the Corps of Engineers. 
To this day I cannot understand their reasoning. 

I brought a book along called "The Wonder of Water" by Erie 
Stanley Gardner; if it is good enough for Perry Mason, it is good 
enough for me. Let me quote about the Sacramento River : 

Miles and miles of trees have been torn up. The once picturesque 
lagoons have become mere canals fenced in with rock-faced levees. 
California has lost much of its scenic and recreational charm as a 
result. If, within the next three or four years, we are told that our 
systems of dams, millions of dollars invested, have lessened the 
damages of floods, the barren, treeless levees with the rock-faces re- 
flecting shimmering heat will be a tragic reminder of our national 
disregard for natural beauty and our passion to destroy and change 
in blind worship of the god of efficiency. 

I recommend legislation that would provide that each and every 
flood control project of the Army Corps of Engineers be referred to 
the governor of the State within which this takes place for comment 
and recommendation as to the natural beauty impact of the proposed 
public works. 

Mrs. DONALD MCLAUGHLIN. Mr. Chairman and members of 
the panel, it is very heartening that you are aware of the plight of 
Lake Tahoe and San Francisco Bay; in fact, the waters of Lake 
Tahoe can turn brown and two-thirds of San Francisco Bay can be 

As a delegate from California, I wish to propose that the out- 
standing water areas of the United States be designated national 


scenic water recreational landmarks and be safeguarded from any 
public or private projects and programs that might destroy their 
beauty. Among areas in California with which we are deeply con- 
cerned are San Francisco Bay and Lake Tahoe. 

We suggest that criteria for determining the public interest in all 
major water areas be established for the immediate guidance of 
local, State, and Federal agencies. 

WILLIAM MOORE. Engineers have not fared very well here. I 
think that some of this criticism is no doubt justified, but I also 
think it is well to remember that engineers design what the people 
and clients are willing to pay for. Mrs. Owings made some refer- 
ence to that this morning. Even the Army Engineers, I think, 
would be glad to design facilities which had the qualities that we 
would like. Being a boater and liking to go up the Sacramento 
River, I endorse the comments about the Sacramento River. How- 
ever, what is needed is some basis for criteria. 

Every project, even a beautiful one, must have a price tag. We 
need some way and I think this is not impossible to assess or ap- 
praise a budget for the incremental values that we would like to see 
built into these projects. I think this can be done on the basis of an 
objective appraisal as to the over-all impact in the area and in the 
community. This is not easy, and it cannot be done precisely, but I 
think it would be worth the study. 

Mrs. BOLTON. Will the gentleman yield? 

I would like to say that I would be reluctant to agree if it were 
always based on cost. The price is not the ultimate thing. Beauty 
is the ultimate. 

SAM ZISMAN. I would like to make a partial response to this and a 
proposal or suggestion. 

One of the problems involved is not the absolute cost of any given 
individual program, but the way funds are available or used among 
a number of programs. This seems to me one of the hurts of our 
present approach. It seems to me that somehow we have got to 
find methods, approaches, means to make use of the funds which are 
made available, both public and private, to do the greatest job pos- 
sible, not any particular separate program. Part of the difficulty, 
for example, with the programs of the Corps of Engineers is that 
they establish their basis of cost and benefits within very narrow 
limits. They do not take into account the problems of amenities 


and beauty and so on, and yet these are a fundamental part of the 
range of values. 

I would like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in the new housing 
bill now before Congress, a provision be included for demonstration 
projects. This has been done in a number of other pieces of legis- 
lation where the Congress has made money available for certain 
kinds of demonstration projects within a certain field. I would like 
to suggest that these demonstration programs be applied, at least in 
some instances, for those kinds of situations as, for example, in 
waterfronts, whereby all the agencies of the Federal and local gov- 
ernments and any other private interest concerned can be coordinated 
in a single program. 

Most of the language of these demonstration programs, the pro- 
visions of the act, are so written as to give a great deal of leeway. 
I think with administrative approval and with the provision of funds 
by the Congress it will be perfectly possible to have a half dozen or 
a dozen demonstration projects throughout the country to indicate 
how the waterfront can be developed for utility and beauty as well. 

The question was asked this morning by Mr. Davis are the 
cities ready? I know of several instances where the cities are ready. 
The Austin Town Lake project, 6 miles of waterfront on both sides 
in the City of Austin, Tex., is now ready to undertake such a demon- 
stration project. I could mention others. 

One of the very real difficulties we find in our work at the local 
level is the fracturing of programs and the fracturing of the expendi- 
ture of funds. If somehow we can find a way of working so that 
the Federal programs, as well as the local programs, are coordinated 
rather than done piecemeal and in conflict with one another, I think 
we can find a very good way of meeting some of our problems. 

Mr. WIRTH. I would like to make a comment on this. I have had 
a good example. 

In certain flood control activities in Florida, the Corps of Engineers 
has drained all the fresh water out of the Everglades. So this year 
all of the birds left, and they left their nests and young. The Corps 
of Engineers gave no consideration whatsoever to the Everglades and 
the fact that they needed fresh water along with the salt water. That 
is an example of why I recommended that there be a central agency 
to review every one of these projects before anything is started. 

Here is a State that gave the government 1.5 million acres and $2 
million to establish the Everglades National Park, and this year the 


birds had to leave their nests with young in them because they did 
not have the habitat. The Corps gave no consideration to the need 
for fresh water in the Everglades. 

I go back to my recommendation on the panel discussion, that there 
should be a central agency to take into consideration all values. I 
don't really blame the Corps of Engineers in one way because they 
do not know those values and can't possibly get them without going 
to some central agency that can check them out. Their project went 
through Congress before this problem ever came up. I think that 
having a central agency to coordinate all angles before a project is 
started is vitally important. 

Mr. FEISS. In line with what both Mr. Slay ton and Mr. Wirth 
have said, I wonder whether, if the legislation now pending passes, 
these new river basin commissions would not be the central focal 
point. Presidential appointments of the citizen members of these 
commissions provide a point around which these various questions 
should revolve. I am not saying the proposal for demonstration 
and grants would not be valid at this time, but it seems to me the 
question here is one that relates to a totally new program. The leg- 
islation would establish a program which would set up a kind of 
mechanism that should make it possible for all of the Federal, State, 
and local agencies to come to one point for a discussion of the very 
kind of problems Mr. Wirth and others this afternoon are talking 
about here. 

Mr. Chairman, may I cite one little instance of a recent local 
demonstration grant, if you want to call it that, without Federal 
funds? The city of Rochester, N.Y., with its own funds has just 
completed an in-town study of the Genesee River Valley, including 
design plans for the river and economic development plans simul- 
taneously with engineering water studies involved. As far as I 
know, this is the first modern, up-to-date study of an urban river 
within the boundaries of a city. There are larger studies of the 
Genesee being undertaken by the Genesee River Policy Body, but I 
am speaking here of the 18 miles of the length of the river within 
the city itself. 

DONALD WOOD. Several years ago the Housing and Home Fi- 
nance Agency gave us a section 314 demonstration grant to 
study the applicability of urban renewal techniques to waterfronts. 
Our main report has not been published. However, tomorrow I 
am discussing the final text with the people from HHFA. Our 


technical supplement has very recently been published. I would 
suggest that, while this study will not give an answer to all the ques- 
tions raised here, it might have some value to those of you who are 
in urban areas. 

I think urban renewal will be of great help in making waterfront 
land available in the centers of cities and perhaps it will release pres- 
sure on other land. 

The second point I will make very quickly is that in our State, in 
local and regional planning, we are putting a good deal of emphasis 
on prohibition of dumping on shorelines these days and trying to keep 
trash out of flood plains. 

ROBERT H. EYRE. I am interested in knowing if, in any of the 
laws proposed, there is any incentive for existing industry or rail- 
roads which adjoin the waterfront to abandon trackage or allow ease- 
ments to make the shoreline available. 

Is there something in the law that Mr. Wirth and Mrs. Bolton 
proposed that does not already exist? 

Mr. FEISS. I know of nothing in the proposed legislation that 
would cover these particular points. It is very important that they 
be added because we do have, just as I mentioned earlier in respect 
to the Delaware River Basin, serious blight in what might be called 
nonurban areas caused by bad waterfront conditions, abandoned 
railroad tracks, and so on. This would be a very useful addition to 
the legislation. 

FRANK GREGG. Do you want to address yourselves to the differ- 
ence between the Senate and House versions of amendments to the 
Federal Water Pollution Act which are now pending? You will 
recall that the Senate version responds to the President's request for 
a broader, stronger Federal program of upgraded water quality stand- 
ards. Many of us have some doubts that the House version does, 
and I think it would be ironic and most unfortunate if this conference 
did not strongly support the President by addressing itself to the 
basic issues posed by the two bills. 

DAVID BROWER. In San Francisco we are rilling the bay, as you 
have heard. Nearby we have wrecked mile after mile of streams in 
the process of taking out the redwoods. Where once we had a herit- 
age, we now have nothing. Everything is going. 

Wilderness was not on the agenda for this conference and we 
understand why. However, since wilderness is one of the places 

779-59565 12 


where some of our best water comes from, I would like to suggest 
that we append as a footnote to the conference the proceedings from 
the conference we had in San Francisco six weeks ago. I suggest 
this not so much for wilderness as for what that conference says about 
the people problem that we have in California now. We found out 
in that conference that we would soon cut our last redwoods, fill 
our last bay, dam our last great canyon, and lose other such things, 
unless man soon decides that it is not essential for him to double his 
population every 40 years or every 15 years as we do it in Cali- 
fornia. This is one problem that man does not have to assume he 
can't do anything about. 

I think that possibly this panel might point out in its final recom- 
mendations that the President should schedule a White House Con- 
ference on Population Control, wherein the talent represented here 
could attack this population problem, which seems to underlie all 
the other problems we have been talking about. 

Statements Submitted for the Record 

MILO W. HOISVEEN. Giant reservoirs have been constructed on 
the Missouri River in the States of South Dakota, North Dakota, 
and Montana. These reservoirs permit the incoming waters to drop 
their silt loads. The clear water is repeatedly discharged from the 
series of reservoirs for downstream use. It immediately endeavors 
to pick up its former silt load by eroding the banks and degrading 
the channel. Hundreds of acres of land are stolen by the river from 
landowners adjacent to the stream each year through erosion. 

Landowners in our democracy have historically defended their 
land even if with their life. Protecting land against the river is ex- 
pensive; consequently, he uses whatever means are available to him. 
He attempts to retard erosion by bulldozing trees over the bank 
or installing riprap through the use of old car bodies. Both are 
unsightly and contribute ugliness to the many pleasure boat pas- 
sengers that frequent the river. While those reaches of the river 
below the system of reservoirs which are used for navigation can be 
protected without cost to the landowner and the navigator, the land- 
owner or a legal entity in these areas where barges are not in 
evidence must furnish costly assurances which are difficult to comply 

It is suggested that the White House Conference on Natural Beauty 
urge that bank stabilization be provided in compliance with naviga- 


tion criteria and assurances so the natural beauty and historical sites 
of these areas be retained for present and future generations. 

PATRICK HORSBRUGH. Particular attention should be given to 
the matter of water and transportation. These indivisible topics 
seldom receive the extent and study they warrant. The range 
of relevance varies from the inheritance of circumstances past to 
inventions of the immediate future. 

The problem divides in two distinct parts : ( 1 ) The consequences 
arising from outmoded services and the reuse opportunities of har- 
borage and railroad acreages. (2) The demands to be expected 
from the introduction of new vehicles and systems of movement 
and storage, such as hovercraft, dracones and vertical flight. 

Each of these systems will inevitably make use of water frontage, 
both shallow and deep, and will invade areas previously believed 
to be inaccessible. It is essential that the physical and economic 
pressure which these new vehicles portend should be explored in 
respect to all conditions of water frontage around the coasts, along 
the major rivers and around the major lakes. This is essentially a 
matter of imaginative coordination of existing data from many 
sources. The initiative should still rest with the Department of the 

DONALD W. INSALL. Why do we waste our waterways? In Lon- 
don, England, our streets are so crammed with vehicles that if they 
had flat tops, you could walk along them. Yet Father Thames is 
empty except for the occasional police boat. Why? 

Do you remember the joy of looking at water ( clean water ) of walk- 
ing by it and of traveling on it? Can we not use this opportunity? 
Water is level and beautiful and pedestrians like level and beau- 
tiful walks. Why not more waterside walkways? Waterways are 
continuous and have few traffic signals, few obstacles. Why not 
more water buses? 

The riverside strand and river passenger travel are the most ne- 
glected joy of all our cities both in Britain and in the United States. 

JOHN P. MOSER. While stream pollution is a serious problem, it 
is encouraging to note that in the case of one industry, voluntary 
corrective action is reaching a successful outcome. After June 30, 
no more "hard" detergents will be manufactured for United States 
consumption. Already most of the output of detergent plants is of 


the soft type and foaming on streams from this source will soon be 
a thing of the past. 

It took ten years of research and development to come up with 
product ingredients, such as the new LAS, that will wash efficiently 
and yet be broken down rapidly by bacteria after they go down the 

It should be noted that while detergent residues in waste water 
can cause foam in concentrations as low as one part per million, they 
never have been a health hazard. While this one cause of foam will 
disappear, the serious 90 percent of other pollutants still remains. 
Because clean water is indispensable for the functioning of the prod- 
ucts of the soap and detergent industry, it has a continuing interest 
in clean water programs. 

This, I believe, is a good demonstration of the social responsibility 
of numbers of corporations working voluntarily toward cleaner water 
without any expense to the government. 

Dr. ROGER REVELLE. I would like to put four ideas briefly on the 

First, as to education. In Europe, the river is the heart of the city. 
Try to think of Paris without the Seine, Florence without the Arno, 
or London without the Thames. In the United States, the river is 
usually looked at as a giant sewer, often politely called a drain, and 
as a convenient route for high speed highways. We Americans, both 
children and adults, need to educate ourselves about the wonder and 
beauty of the rivers that flow through our cities. 

Second, about riverbanks and "air rights." Most respectable 
rivers curve and meander as they wander through the city. If the 
highway engineers believed their own statements about using the 
shortest and straightest route from point to point, they would seldom 
design a freeway along a riverbank. They must really use these 
banks, in part because they are nearly level, and in part because they 
are public lands and hence land acquisition costs are low. With 
modern earth moving machinery, hills are not a serious problem. 
With the new ideas about "air rights" for giant buildings over super 
highways, the problem of land acquisition costs for these highways 
may well disappear, and with it the justification for routing such 
highways along riverbanks. On the other hand, exploitation of 
existing air rights along riverbanks and lakeshores, for example those 
belonging to railroads, must be very carefully controlled, else the 
potential beauty and meaning of the river as the heart of the city 


may never be fulfilled. We need to use much more widely and 
effectively the concept of the "scenic easement" that Stewart Udall 
has invoked along the Potomac. 

Third, about stretching the shorelines. Riverbanks and bay shores 
near cities, indeed all the shorelines along our seacoasts and lakes, 
are one of our most precious assets, for they are almost one dimen- 
sional, only a narrow line or strip, rather than a broad area. To 
make room for our growing population to enjoy these narrow spaces, 
we need to stretch our shorelines by wrinkling them. We can do 
this by building bays, bars, islands, and peninsulas along the shores. 
The city of Chicago is doing an exciting job of this kind on its Lake 
Michigan shoreline, and it is also beginning to take the Chicago River 
seriously as a priceless civic asset. 

Fourth, the problem of multiple jurisdictions. In San Francisco 
Bay, it is almost impossible to develop and carry through a plan for 
the optimum human use of the Bay because of the problem of con- 
flicting, overlapping, and multiple public jurisdiction. No town, 
city, or district has sufficient control to do anything really satisfactory 
in restoring and building the beauty of the Bay. Each little juris- 
diction is anxious to expand its taxable area by filling in its share of 
the Bay front, and to reduce its costs of waste disposal by using the 
Bay as a convenient dumping ground. 

What is needed is a single San Francisco Bay authority charged 
with planning and carrying through development of the Bay as 
one of the great human assets of the United States. Here I suggest 
the Federal Government could help by using the carrot of Federal 
grants and the stick or threat of Federal control to encourage the 
establishment of such a unified activity. It is easy to say that San 
Francisco Bay is a local California problem, but, in fact, San Fran- 
cisco Bay is a priceless asset for all Americans, in some sense the 
symbol of our country, and its development must be the concern of 
all Americans. 

Dr. J. HAROLD SEVERAID. The city of Sacramento and the State 
of California have cooperatively developed a redevelopment plan 
for Old Sacramento which includes a complete renovation of the 
city's waterfront into a beautiful aquatic park. Its published plan 
is available from the Sacramento Redevelopment Agency. It may 
well serve as one of the demonstration programs Mr. Dworsky called 
for. This project will also involve the historical restoration noted 
by Mr. Tunnard. 



1:30 p.m., Monday, May 24 

The Chairman, Mr. BABCOCK. There are numerous facets in the 
design of the highway. It must be planned to care for land develop- 
ment and traffic volumes many years in the future. It must be de- 
signed to have maximum possible built-in safety features. It must be 
located to do the minimum possible damage to private and public 
property. It must be fitting and proper in terms of its surrounding 
environment. Finally, all of these elements must be put together in a 
package that the public is willing to pay for. Providing such a high- 
way system for a nation on wheels is a most challenging problem for 
all governmental agencies. 

Today we are not here to discuss this total problem or the merits 
of various forms of transportation but rather, the problem as it relates 
to highway design and natural beauty. The matter of highway 
design and beauty is obviously relative and there will be many diver- 
sified opinions pertaining to it. There is the matter of the design 
of the highway itself in terms of its over-all attractiveness. There is 
the matter of the effect that the highway will have upon the natural 
landscape and existing environment. There is the matter of the 
over-all panorama to be seen by the motorist. There is the matter 
of superimposing a new urban highway network upon an existing 
metropolitan complex to eliminate existing traffic strangulation and 
to prevent further economic decay. These and many other matters 
must be thoroughly analyzed if we are to design efficient and safe 
highways that have built-in attractiveness. 

Members of the Panel on The Design of the Highway were Wil- 
liam Babcock (Chairman), Colin D. Buchanan, John Clarkeson, 
Lawrence Halprin, Boris Pushkarev, John J. Ryan, Francis W. Sar- 
gent, and Rex M. Whitton. Staff Associate was James L. Shotwell. 



To panelists and participants alike I would caution that we are 
not here to waste each other's time in interdisciplinary disputes rela- 
tive to past responsibilities for highway design. We are not here to 
spend our time outlining mistakes of the past made by engineers, plan- 
ners, or others unless examples of these mistakes can show us ways 
to do our job better. Rather, we have been called here to develop 
specific proposals for the implementation of a positive action pro- 
gram. What then is this action program that we are to develop? 

It has been stated most adequately and eloquently by the President 
in his message to Congress: "I hope that all levels of government, 
our planners and builders will remember that highway beautification 
is more than a matter of planting trees or setting aside scenic areas. 
The roads themselves must reflect, in location and design, increased 
respect for the natural and social integrity and unity of the landscape 
and communities through which they pass." 

Let us, therefore, now move ahead to develop better working re- 
lationships between all disciplines and let us develop new planning 
and design techniques such that we may positively implement the fine 
statement of the President. 

Mr. SARGENT. First let me emphasize, as a career conservationist 
turned roadbuilder, that I am a most enthusiastic supporter of the 
movement for a "Green America." We must acquire broader 
rights-of-way to protect our scenic areas; we must remove or screen 
junkyards and borrow pits, and plan for the harmonious use of 
natural terrain. 

I am sure public funds are put to the best use in making motoring 
a delight to the eye and satisfying to the soul as we build our inter- 
state highways through the open countryside. 

But let me ask this is there not something very incongruous in 
highway planning that calls for more beauty in the country, and then 
creates the very antithesis of the green America concept ugly urban 
monsters in our cities? 

Instead of highways with wide green median strips, built to seek 
out and take advantage of scenic vistas in the open spaces, in our 
cities we frequently build highways on steel stilts, sometimes four 
tiers of them, so stark and ungainly that millions are offended by 
them daily. 

None can dispute the statement that some of America's freeways 
are hideous. Granted they are utilitarian, and undoubtedy less 


expensive than more imaginative and tasteful designs but they still 
are disfigurements of the cityscape. 

The time has come to give aesthetics an equal vote in the planning 
and construction of highways in metropolitan America. It is time 
to stop building ugly urban monsters in the name of economy alone. 
We must look beyond the dollar. We must look for ways to bring 
grace and symmetry to the hearts of our cities. 

Granted it will add more, maybe much more, to original con- 
struction costs, but the cities of this Nation will be living with these 
structures long after the bonds have been amortized. 

I ask this conference to look for ways to bring the Green America 
concept into the hearts of our Nation's cities, where three-fourths of 
the population will live by the year 2000. 

Massachusetts, in step with the rest of the Nation, has just 
passed the halfway mark in the construction of its interstate high- 
way system. Like the rest of the country, our department of public 
works is presently confronted with the task of completing this pro- 
gram with the construction of final portions in the more densely 
populated and developed areas of our State. 

Through historic Boston and Cambridge, we are building a cir- 
cumferential highway the inner belt that forms a hub from 
which radiate the express highways of the region. This is the most 
challenging project that has ever confronted our State. We must 
preserve the character of this area, which includes stretches of his- 
toric parkland, two famous museums, and several of the Nation's 
eminent universities. 

We are examining all concepts and designs, from tunnels to grace- 
ful aerial structures. We must protect what we have and enhance 
rather than detract from the pleasant setting of our metropolitan 
area. We must develop the best plan. To accomplish this we have 
set up a volunteer blue ribbon committee of architects, city planners, 
and civic leaders to assist our department. Our aim is to protect 
the dignity and grace of this area. We know it will cost more, but 
why can't aesthetics have an equal seat at the conference table with 
construction costs and road user benefits? 

We need the highways in our urban centers to save them from 
choking on their own traffic. But let's not settle for less than the 
best for what we build today is a legacy to our great-grandchildren. 

Let's make our cities more liveable and pleasant. 

I am sure you will agree that beauty in our cities should also have 
a price tag. 


I urge, therefore, that the Bureau of Public Roads add to its 
criteria, benefits and allowances for urban aesthetics in its highway 
program. We have put the Interstate Highway Program to work 
for America and have seen it fulfill much of its promise but its 
fulfillment will be even greater when aesthetics become, in America, 
a full-fledged partner with utility. 

Mr. RYAN. My colleagues will very ably deal with certain phases 
of the design of highways from their respective viewpoints as mem- 
bers of a design team. I will discuss the role of the landscape archi- 
tect on the design team and outline certain items of landscape work 
which should be considered in the design of most highways, be they 
rural or urban. 

Man has long been aware of the beauty and appearance of the 
roads and the regions he travels and literature abounds in references 
to his observations on these subjects. That we Americans, probably 
the most mobile people in history, should have a deep concern about 
the appearances of what we see while traveling is a natural and 
desirable thing. 

A major objective of the highway design team should be to assure 
that the potential for natural beauty in and along the highways 
is fully utilized. Beauty in the design of the highway must be 
deliberately sought; it seldom comes about by accident. This applies 
both to rural and urban highways. 

Having accepted this basic premise that beauty must be deliberately 
sought, how do we achieve it? 

First, we must develop a concept of what we mean by natural 
beauty. This concept probably should be a composite one rather 
than the opinion of one man. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, 
and you are going to have lots of beholders. One essential step in the 
development of a concept of natural beauty is that we must recognize 
and fully utilize the best of the local scenery, whatever it is, be it 
mountains, deserts, farmland, or a city scene. 

Second, the highway design team should, in the earliest stage of 
preliminary design, make an aesthetic inventory along the pro- 
posed route of the highway. This inventory will include all those 
natural features within a rather broad strip, which could contribute 
to the making of a beautiful highway including possible views and 
areas for essential landscaping. The inventory will also have a nega- 
tive or nonaesthetic heading under which should be listed those fea- 
tures or developments which will detract from the appearance of the 


highway and which must be removed, screened, controlled, or re- 

With the results of the aesthetic inventory at hand, the design team 
can analyze the potential for beauty for each highway project and 
determine the basic aesthetic character of the highway to be built. 
These determinations will vary greatly according to the part of the 
country and class of highway. Certain broad and perhaps some 
detailed design requirements concerning the aesthetic aspects of the 
engineering and landscape components for the specific project will 
result from the referenced inventory, analysis, and determination. 

To implement the broad design requirements, checklists for the 
various design features of the highway should be prepared to insure 
their consideration at the plan-making level. The engineering check- 
list concerned with alignment and grade would be the most impor- 
tant and an effective one could be put together by the many talented 
design engineers and other members of the design team. 

Assuming that the basic landscape character sought has been de- 
cided by the design team, the landscape design checklist should con- 
tain design features such as : 

1. Have we enough right-of-way to produce the aesthetic and land- 
scape character determined by the design team? 

2. What natural or historical features are to be preserved? 

3. Are sites for scenic overlooks and rest areas available? 

4. What special grading requirements are necessary? 

5. Do we need special specifications for clearing and grubbing 
the trees on the right-of-way to minimize damage, for defining work 
limits, and for proper control of borrow pits and spoil areas? 

6. What grasses do we need on our turf areas for appearance and 
to control erosion? 

7. What is the appropriate planting needed along the highway? 

8. What use should be made of the unused parcels along the high- 
way in urban areas? 

The above checklist is only a sample and additional items should 
be placed on it as required. 

The use of section 319 of title 23 U.S.C. enabling the States to 
obtain land with 1 00 percent Federal funds for scenic and landscap- 
ing purposes can be a terrific help in building and keeping beau- 
tiful highways. Make sure your State has enabling legislation to take 
advantage of this section which is part of the very backbone of our 


It would also greatly aid in keeping the highways beautiful and 
litter-free, now that we have them all built, if each State has a 
strong beautification and anti-litter organization modeled along the 
lines recommended by Keep America Beautiful. 

In conclusion, I would be remiss if I did not tell this distinguished 
assembly of the semisecret, nonengineering, but highly effective de- 
sign principle we use so successfully in New York to build our 
beautiful highways. I quote from a design directive issued by Dep- 
uty Chief Engineer B. A. Lefeve. In it he said, "The highway 
should fit into the landscape like a deer in the woods, not like a bull 
in a china shop." 

Mr. CLARKESON. In the development of the location and design 
of major highways, two public responsibilities must be discharged. 

The obvious one is the development of a roadway for the trans- 
portation function, properly meshed with the needs of the area and 
with other forms of transportation existing or planned. Little disa- 
greement exists today to this planning premise. 

Less observed and perhaps less obvious is the social obligation to 
maintain or create an environment that people, both the driver and 
the pedestrian, can live in. The highway industry is a major opera- 
tion on the rural and urban area. The highway effort for the most 
part is almost totally lacking in creativeness as part of the living land- 

The interstate system, being constructed on wholly new rights- 
of-way without the confines of serving abutting property, can lend 
itself admirably to the development of fine examples of rural and 
urban scene. Any highway constructed in this program has a qual- 
ity of durability; if it is a bad influence on the landscape it is bad 
for a long time. If it is good it will be good for a long time. Because 
so much of it is enormous an eight-lane highway runs 125 to 200 
feet wide and interchanges run up to 50 acres it can overwhelm, 
in size alone, any other architectural, planning, or landscaped area 
near it. 

Since its size is so overwhelming it should and can be planned, 
designed, and built to complement rather than destroy all within 
sight of it. 

The public obligation of the highway industry requires the adop- 
tion of three needed principles : 

1. That it will not unwittingly destroy any existing architectural, 
historic, or other desirable value. 


2. That it will complement any existing or proposed future values. 

3. That in areas which are presently nondescript or in need of 
rehabilitation it will be the seed to induce good adjoining develop- 

Now let's apply these principles 

1 . Location. The continued destruction of other public facilities 
such as parks, playgrounds and educational institutions is a gross 
and unwarranted extension of the highway fund. While the dollar 
value of the land taken appears less, it is only because of a lack of 
realistic appraisal of the public function destroyed. 

In locating the highway, due regard should and can be given to the 
views both of countryside and cityscape if care is exercised. Merging 
of the highway plan and other redevelopment programs, too often 
omitted in the planning, is one way that such locations can aid rather 
than hurt the urban scene. 

2. Design. One of the difficulties of expressway design is in the 
elephantine size of many urban and suburban roads. An 8-, 10-, 
or 12-lane highway is a tremendous thing. The designer is some- 
times caught between hiding it under the rug or autocratically bull- 
dozing a wide swath. Neither need be done. 

If the multilane highway is broken down into its component parts, 
none need be in excess of four lanes. And if each such four-lane 
element is designed as to form and placement, vertically as well as 
horizontally, all the necessary traffic functions can be performed 
and each integral section can be designed with a fineness often re- 
served for good buildings. 

In this respect the usual technique is to have an engineering 
design gussied up by an architect to cover its too obvious rough shell. 
Such wallpapering techniques serve little or no purpose of permanent 
environmental value. 

The proper procedure is to have the architect involved in all 
projects and to have him as a prime member of the team in the 
control of line, grade, and general form. Unnecessary and expen- 
sive facing techniques can often be avoided and a sculptural form 
can be obtained complementary to the area through which the high- 
way traverses. 

Design by directive is not in the interest of creating a good high- 
way. Little things, even as little as the indiscriminate use of massive 
doses of chain-link fence, can destroy an otherwise good design. 
There are better and cheaper methods of accomplishing the same 


Highway design is a custom job and should not be obtained from 
handbooks as so often is the case. 

Do these techniques cost money? 

In engineers' or architects' time and thought, yes. 

But in the cost of construction they are more apt to save money. 

On many rural interstate projects, we have gone to the effort to 
avoid scars and fit the highway in with the land contour and have 
saved large amounts of money mostly in items such as rock excava- 
tion and river relocations. 

In the urban scene such economies are not always available but 
if the social values which are otherwise destroyed were measured, 
here too would the public's ultimate cost be reduced. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. As one of the few delegates from overseas to 
this conference, perhaps I may be permitted to spend a moment 
of my allotted time in expressing my appreciation at having been 
invited to this distinguished gathering. I feel more than doubtful 
whether, in the absence of detailed knowledge of conditions and 
administration in the United States, I can really contribute any- 
thing to the solution of problems as they are arising here. But I can 
say that very much the same problems are arising in Britain, with 
perhaps the difference that the same forces are arrayed against an 
environment which tends, in both urban and rural areas, to be small 
scale, intimate and delicate in character, and therefore all the more 
susceptible to irretrievable damage. 

This panel is concerned with 'The design of the highway.' I do 
not interpret this as meaning solely the design of expressways or free- 
ways but the design of all surfaces that carry motor vehicles. This 
presents one problem in open or rural areas, but an altogether dif- 
ferent and much more formidable problem in urban areas. Here 
the conflict is not between natural beauty and a manmade utility 
in the form of a highway, but between the circulation of vehicles 
on the one hand and the safety, convenience and general welfare 
of the people who occupy the area on the other. Unless highways 
are properly related to the development of the town they serve, then 
there is the risk that the beauty will be no more than skindeep. 

The essence of the relationship between highways and develop- 
ment is to secure a highway system which permits the efficient cir- 
culation of vehicles to destinations without in the process wrecking 
the environment by the widespread danger, noise, fumes, and vibra- 
tion of motor vehicles and their universal intrusion into the visual 


scene. This is not a matter of planning and beautifying a few major 
highways; it is a matter of paying over- all attention to urban areas 
to insure that wherever vehicles penetrate, in back streets as much 
as in main streets, they do not ruin the surroundings for people. 

I think there is only one principle whereby progress can be made. 
This is gradually to create, inside towns and cities, subareas where 
considerations of environment are paramount and take precedence 
over the movement or parking of vehicles. These might be termed 
"urban rooms." It is here that people will live and work and have 
their being, and their environmental needs may well limit the 
amount of traffic to be admitted. The concomitant of urban rooms 
is to have a corridor system (or highway network) onto which longer 
movements of vehicles from locality to locality are concentrated, 
leaving the urban rooms to deal only with their own traffic. 

The network as I have described it is essentially a facility for 
movement. Nevertheless it can be a well-designed utility. There 
are several aspects to this. It should be good to look at for those 
people in whose field of view it falls. This includes people who have 
to live with it in the sense that their dwellings or offices overlook it; 
and the people who use it when driving or riding in vehicles, whose 
requirements may be quite different. It should be so sited that it 
does not carve up areas that by any rights should be homogenous 
units. It should not be so out of scale with the surroundings that it 
destroys all sense of urban cohesion. The need to keep it in scale 
may even be a crucial limiting factor on the amount of traffic that 
can be handled. 

Within the areas which I have described as urban rooms there 
will be much traffic circulating. Once again, it is only part of the 
problem to have beautiful circulation routes. The basic question 
is to see how people can live at close quarters with the motor vehicle. 

To this end it seems essential to work toward a code of environ- 
mental standards. I see this as merely another step in the long 
struggle to upgrade the quality of urban surroundings, in which 
process the definition of standards has played a major role. Over- 
crowding in dwellings, bad sanitation, lack of ventilation, dampness, 
lack of daylight and sunlight, insufficient play spaces for children 
all these are matters where steady social progress has followed the 
setting up of standards. I submit that we now need to follow in 
the same tradition by defining the standards of danger, anxiety, 
noise, fumes, vibration, and visual intrusion that are to be regarded 


as acceptable in relation to motor traffic in our civilized urban areas. 

It is a difficult field with a large subjective element in which little 
serious research work has been carried out, but I think it is funda- 
mental to dealing with traffic in cities. 

I think the beautification of highways must be seen as part of this 
comprehensive process, which, of course, is no less than city planning 

If this process be based on the principle that buildings, access 
ways, and all the material stuff of cities are there for us to mold 
deliberately for our own convenience and delight, then there is hope 
that we shall make progress with what is now coming into view, all 
over the world, as the major social problem for the rest of this cen- 
tury ; namely, the form and organization of cities. 

Mr. HALPRIN. First I would like to define the parameters for my 
discussion. I would like to confine my remarks to the design of 
freeways within dense urban cores, understanding as I do that 
there are areas out in the countryside for which handsome freeways 
also must be designed. 

Some years ago I was asked by the State Division of Highways in 
California to work as a consultant on urban freeways. Their inten- 
tion was, I believe, that I would evolve some technique by which the 
planting of massed trees and shrubs would screen out the ugly 
structures and make them beautiful possibly evolve a technique of 
parkway design which would make freeways more palatable in a 

As I began to look into the problem, however, I began to realize 
in a very clear way that the urban freeway was in fact a new breed 
of cat and that it had to be designed as such. The more I thought 
about it the more I realized that most of the principles which had 
been evolved for freeways in the country were completely wrong 
in the city. 

The city freeway had to deal with the city. The important point 
was to make the freeway a part of the city to evolve a new urban 
form of traffic architecture whose ultimate aim was to improve the 
city, not just move traffic about. 

Handsome freeways can readily be designed for new cities or for 
new sections of older cities as parkways whose characteristics are 
similar to freeways in the country with wide rights-of-way, widely 
separated roadbeds and heavily screened verges. 


However, freeway design must find other solutions when in- 
serted into older sections of densely built up, valuable urban cores 
where land values are high, where existing architectural and urban 
values are important to preserve, and where residential and com- 
mercial areas will be disrupted. 

Here are a few of the major points which I consider important 
in the design of urban freeways. 

1. The sinuous, curvilinear pattern of country freeways is inappro- 
priate in the city. It cuts across the existing grid, disrupts neigh- 
borhood patterns and leaves odd, difficult-to-integrate pieces. Urban 
freeways should follow the grid of the city. 

2. The wide right-of-way, with variable median strips and planted 
verges and shoulders, is inappropriate in cities because it wreaks 
havoc with existing structures, takes too much land off the tax rolls 
and separates neighborhoods by great swaths cut through a city's 

3. Urban freeways should fit into existing and projected land-use 
and topographic patterns in a city. They should go between neigh- 
borhoods, not through them, or they should go between two different 
land uses, such as industrial and residential, or utilize topographic 
changes by sliding along below hills where they cannot be seen. 

4. Urban freeways should be condensed and concentrated, not 
spread out. They should employ urban, not country aesthetics. Ac- 
cordingly, they must use multilevel, split-level, depressed, and ele- 
vated groupings to facilitate concentration of the road bed. As 
a byproduct, connections across freeways, from one side to the other, 
become much easier to achieve. 

The objection to elevated freeways is, in large measure, I have 
observed, due to the environment under them, which is usually ugly 
and unpleasant, devoted to parking lots, bus storage and cyclone 
fences, and is not the elevated structure itself. The largest single 
problem in condensation is interchanges, some of which may have 
to go underground or be designed as parks. 

5. Urban freeways should be integrated with the city and not 
simply be a corridor through it. They should pass through buildings, 
have shops built with them and other structures such as restaurants 
and parking garages, integrated into their structure. 

6. Freeways should be built as part of a total community develop- 
ment, not unilaterally. If a freeway must pass through a city, its 
design and construction must involve the total environmental rede- 
velopment of the area through which it passes. To this end many 

779-59565 13 


levels of government as well as private enterprise must join forces 
to effect complete redevelopment. This should involve building 
on the air rights over freeways as well as the rebuilding of areas 
around them. Freeways can then take the lead in generating amenity 
in a city in the new or rebuilt areas by having parks and playgrounds 
pass under them, new structures built over them. Ultimately it is 
the design of the environment of a freeway which counts for more 
than the actual structure itself. 

7. Freeways must be developed as only a part of a total trans- 
portation program in which mass transit and other techniques for 
limiting further car traffic must be established, including the very 
real possibility that no more freeways should be designed. 

Mr. PUSHKAREV. Over 60 percent of the interstate system is now 
completed or under construction. Thus, unless we want to write 
off the appearance of the bulk of our freeways, some retroactive 
measures must be considered. Aside from a major expansion of 
billboard control to attack the real eyesores in urbanized and com- 
mercial areas, and aside from expanding the principle of limited 
access to suburban local arterials, both of which are covered by 
different panels, a commitment to rectify some past omissions would 

1. Additional right-of-way acquisition, particularly in growing 
suburban and resort areas, to guarantee, wherever development per- 
mits, a 150-foot minimum buffer zone between the edge of shoulder 
and the taking line. 

2. Correction of awkward grading through generous rounding 
and warping of slopes, flatter embankments, and a substitution, 
wherever median width and climate permit, of planted earth berms 
and similar devices for metal barriers. 

3. Encouragement of native vegetation on the roadside and more 
generous artificial landscaping of prominent areas, particularly near 
urban interchanges. This would utilize upward slopes or down- 
slopes protected by guardrails, to bring tree growth closer to the road 
and break the monotony of the wide swath. 

On freeways whose location and geometric design are not yet 
finalized more fundamental improvements are possible via essen- 
tially three avenues of approach. The first is a vigorous infusion 
of aesthetic considerations into design standards for alignment and 
profile. This would include, on rural and suburban freeways, the 
use of longer vertical curves, the encouragement of spiral transitions, 


the discouragement of tangent alignment and the favoring of long 
arcs with radii in the 5,000- to 30,000-foot range in open terrain. 

I wish to stress that a variable median and independent roadways 
do not in and of themselves produce beauty, if the alignment is dis- 
continuous. The principles of smooth, continuous alignment are 
by no means novel, and historically the Bureau of Public Roads and 
some progressive States, such as the State of New York, have used 
them for many years. The question now before us is how to encour- 
age the other States to adopt the best standards. 

The second avenue of approach is a basic policy decision on, as 
President Johnson put it, "increased respect for the communities 
through which [the highways] pass." 

This means not just avoiding aesthetic and valuable urban areas 
but also more greenery, wider buffers, more respect for street geom- 
etry, for topography and urban views. Most important, in high 
density residential and downtown areas the highway must be sub- 
ordinated to the dominant pedestrian spaces. This rules out elevated 
or at-grade facilities through these downtown areas and their parks. 
A depressed lower Manhattan expressway or a depressed Delaware 
expressway in Philadelphia may cost up to 50 percent more than 
their above-grade counterparts. But cost-benefit ratio of urban 
facilities is usually so favorable that even an increase of this magni- 
tude will not throw it out of reason. Progressing beyond that, in 
our thinking about the second generation of freeways, we should 
perhaps start thinking of the removal of some existing elevated 
structures such as the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco and 
the West Side Highway in New York. 

Finally, the third avenue of approach has to do with design pro- 
cedures. There are today engineering consultant firms which in- 
clude landscape architects, architects and other visually trained 
professionals on their team, and who have achieved a high 
level of expertise in refined geometric design and location. These 
teams should be allowed to specialize in the initial, visually decisive 
stage of location and geometric layout, while the extremely time con- 
suming, but aesthetically not too relevant phase of preparing working 
drawings, developing drainage details and computing quantities 
should be left to firms proficient in these supporting tasks. This is 
similar to Minoru Yamasaki designing the World Trade Center and 
Emery Roth & Sons doing the working drawings and is a way to 
maximize the utilization of scarce talent. 


Mr. WHITTON. I am happy that the highway is now being rec- 
ognized as a possible potential for a more beautiful America. I 
think that is eminently justified because more people are going 
to see America through the windows of the highway than any 
other way. It behooves us to do all we can to make America beauti- 
ful from the highway. 

Now, of course, I must warn you that there is a difference of 
opinion among us as to what is a beautiful highway. We have 
changed our ideas through the years and we have developed differ- 
ences of opinion and I am talking personally now. When you are 
in this work as long as I have been, you do change your mind, re- 
gardless of what people in the highway departments think. 

Highways are for people and I am reiterating what Mr. Bu- 
chanan said for people who ride on them, and for people who live 
by them. We must keep this in mind as we design and locate them. 
The highways must be beautiful as seen from the driver's seat and 
the backseat driver, and they also must not be a scourge on the 
community through which they pass. 

Highways can be attractive. I am convinced of that, in either 
the rural or urban areas. They can be attractive by their location, 
as some of my cohorts have said, by the proper selection of the routes 
and by the proper selection of the areas through which they pass. 
They can be beautiful by the design of the highway itself, by how it is 
fitted into the landscape and how the roadway is graded. They can 
also be enhanced by plantings along the roadway. All three of these 
items contribute to making a more beautiful highway. 

Highways should serve the local people and meet the local desires 
as well as the needs of through traffic. We must keep this in mind, 
too, as we locate and design highways. 

Each city and each rural section is an individual problem within 
itself. It should be approached in that way. Certainly we should 
work together, and by "we," I mean the local government, the State 
government and the Federal Government. All these groups should 
work together in determining what is best for each individual city, 
and each individual city should take a tremendous interest in what 
is being done about its highway transportation. Highway transpor- 
tation is a part of the total transportation and total transportation is 
a part of the urban planning of the city. 

So I would urge, as many of my cohorts have said before, that we 
utilize each skill that is available in the city and import some if 
necessary the skills of architects, landscape architects, highway en- 


gineers, and psychologists and all the others. We should bring 
these together to form the best possible transportation system and the 
best possible urban plan for our cities in the future because, as 
someone else said, we are building for a long time in the future. We 
ought to build well so that we would like to live there. 

Questions and Discussion 

Mr. WHITTON. I want to ask Mr. Sargent if he would suggest 
how the rural highways can be designed so that they appear to be 
part of the area and not just something added to the area. 

Mr. SARGENT. Actually my statement referred more to urban 
highways. I feel this is the biggest part of the problem. I feel that 
the interstate highways through the countryside are being designed 
better every single one. I think we are taking into consideration 
the harmonious use of the natural terrain. I think that we are be- 
coming more sophisticated in terms of acquiring more lands and 
providing scenic easements and doing things of this nature. 

I personally feel that the matter of planting trees and planting 
exotic bushes and flowers and so on, perhaps should be de- 
emphasized. I think it is more important to use the natural growth, 
to use the trees that are in the region, to use clumps of trees in the 
median strips along the road than to try to introduce other species. 
It seems to me that this is more natural and I think it fits into the 
landscape better. 

Mr. HALPRIN. I would like to have the benefit of Professor Bu- 
chanan's experience. I do not know how many of you have read 
his book. It is called Traffic in Towns. I recommend it to those 
of you who have not read it. I wonder if he could give us any indica- 
tion of what he thinks, on a critical level either good or bad critical 
in the real sense of the word about what we have been doing. Is it 
either good, bad or how can it be improved? 

I know this is a big order. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. I was rather anxious to get home in one piece. 
I did not think I was going to get put on the spot like this, to give 
a critical appraisal of things. 

I do not quite know what to say. But if I could venture a sum- 
mary I think I would put it like this: As far as rural freeways are 
concerned, I would think that you have just about brought this now 


literally to a fine art. Certainly some of the latest work I think is 
just as good as one could hope for anywhere. 

On the urban freeways, this is a much more difficult problem. 
As I have seen it, you have done some very good work at the same 
time, you won't mind my saying so, terrible things have happened. 
You seem to be in the position of having pulled yourself to a halt 
just to take stock of the situation, and this seems to be a wise thing 
to do. 

I think the really important thing is the integration of the urban 
highway with the land use and city pattern. This is the crux of the 

But to me, this question of freeways and movement of traffic on 
freeways is only part of the problem. You could call it the primary 
problem, but I think there is an extremely important secondary prob- 
lem. This is how you deal with the motor vehicle in its intimate cir- 
culation around buildings how you arrange for its parking, how you 
deal with all the paraphernalia that the motor vehicles need how 
you assure that the people in the back streets do not suffer from it. 

This, I think, is a very, very difficult problem and one that seems 
to be arising more in American cities. If I can be quite blunt, if you 
look at American cities over-all and you add up the total amount of 
excruciating ugliness associated directly or indirectly with the motor 
vehicle, then I think it is staggering. If you are going to have beau- 
tiful American cities, you've got an enormous job on your hands in 
that direction alone. 

Mr. BABCOCK. I would like to direct one short question to Mr. 
Pushkarev relative to expanding a little bit about his ideas on how 
you are going to use landscaping to break the monotony of these wide 
open swaths you refer to. 

Mr. PUSHKAREV. The question here is the charm of the old small 
country roads that when one drives over them one is in the land- 
scape. The trees come right up to the edge of the pavement and 
you are enveloped by trees and by the landscape, whereas on our 
freeways, for safety reasons, we have to set the trees back so that 
cars out of control do not hit them. As a result, on each side of 
the pavement we have a minimum of 30 or up to 80 feet which are 
denuded of all vegetation for the purpose of safety. 

The design issue here is to select those spots where trees can be 
brought as close to the pavement as possible and still not conflict 
with the safety criteria. Two such plausible spots are upward slopes 


where the car would hit the slope first and the tree later. There we 
can bring the trees closer in and we could do the same on the down- 
ward sides which are protected by guardrails. Thus vegetation can 
be moved virtually up to the edge of the shoulder and give us a 
passage through the trees rather than through an open desert. 

Mr. SARGENT. I would like to ask Mr. Ryan a question. You 
and I were talking last night about parkways and the fact that many 
of the parkways built over the years, and sections of our interstate 
system, have been constructed with your curvilinear alignment. I 
wonder if you feel that this principle could be used on many or per- 
haps even all of our highways, and do you think of examples of this 
being used well that may be useful to discuss? 

Mr. RYAN. Now that we have the example of what you can do 
with curvilinear alignment, I cannot understand the resistance to 
using it on a much larger scale. Probably I am getting into deep 
water, but if it is successful on one section of the interstate in any 
one State, it should be successful everywhere. I would think that 
the use of it on the interstate and primary and even on the secondary 
highways is a basic decision to be made by the chief highway ad- 
ministrator and I suppose this decision would have to be made in 
light of why we are here. It would logically have to be made by 
the chief administrator and in the full knowledge of the great inter- 
est in the appearance of our highways. 

Mr. BUCHANAN. I was very interested in the suggestion Mr. 
Halprin made about integrating urban freeways with the structure 
of the city. He said they should not be just a corridor through it. He 
went on to say that they should pass through buildings, have shops 
built into them on the structures, such as restaurants, parking 
garages, and the like. This opens up the very intriguing idea that 
you could sit in restaurants, watch the cars swooshing past from the 
other side of a glass wall. This is indeed a very intriguing idea and 
obviously a way of saving space. But, Mr. Halprin, would this not 
pose very formidable problems with real estate people, developers, 
property owners? How can we do this unless they really revolution- 
ize their attitudes? 

Mr. HALPRIN. First, I think there are two questions there. One 
is : Is it a good idea to do, and second of all, could it be accomplished? 

I don't know how many of you have seen some of the things 
that I am thinking of, which have in fact been done on a rather 


limited basis. Some of the new highways in Tokyo, for example, 
are very difficult to see. One section of the highway is really quite 
difficult to see because for three stories under this highway there 
are shops and restaurants. When I went to Tokyo for the Olympic 
Games a few months ago, I found that it was hard to realize 
that there was a highway there. It was encased. Certain sec- 
tions above it were open to the sky. So there was a kind of 
integration of all these amenities of the city along with the highway. 
In this particular case it was accomplished by private interests who 
asked the freeway department to allow them to design and build 
shops and restaurants under the freeway as the department de- 
signed and constructed the freeway. 

It was private initiative in a sense on a redevelopment basis com- 
bined with government. There are other examples of this kind of 
thing, too. I submit to your interest the United Nations Building 
which had in fact a freeway or highway, if you wish to call it that, 
which was built at the same time that the new United Nations Build- 
ing was built. This is an integrated conception with the great plaza 
and everything also over the freeway. Because of the use of the topog- 
raphy, the freeway was opened out to the East River and as you 
drive along you get the wonderful qualities of the East River. This 
has been a great amenity for the city and is precisely the kind of thing 
I am speaking of. 

Mr. SARGENT. It seems to me that since we have this intense com- 
petition for available land in cities we have got to look more and 
more to constructing buildings over our highways. I don't see that 
this need be unattractive. I think it can be done well. In the city 
of Fall River they are going to build the city hall over the interstate 
route. I think it is going to be a very attractive structure that will 
complement the design and really be an asset, rather than a disfigure- 
ment to the location. It seems to me that we may and probably 
eventually will get into constructing buildings, perhaps high-rise 
housing over, around, and through these highways. It seems to me 
that this has to be looked at realistically and I can't see why it can't 
be done in an attractive and ingenious fashion. 

Mr. RYAN. I have a question for Mr. Halprin. You mentioned 
that you should base the design of the freeway within the hard core 
of the city upon the absorptive capacity for the automobiles. This 
can vary from just parking maybe 150 cars on the ground to a ten- 


story pigeonhole parking. It seems to me it varies so much you 
couldn't possibly consider it as a basis for any design at all. 

Mr. HALPRIN. Quite the reverse; I don't agree. It seems to me 
that you have to understand that the city comes first. That is to say, 
the people in the city come first. It is my view that it is very 
much like this auditorium. In order to keep some configuration in 
this auditorium, not overloading the air conditioning and seating, we 
have a certain number of seats in this auditorium which people can 
occupy. If you get too many it would become an untenable situa- 
tion and nobody could breathe well even though you are not allowed 
to smoke here. You can apply the same kind of criteria as this 
to a building whose capacity is limited, and also to elevators which are 
in fact doing what freeways ought to do in cities, that is moving a 
certain number of people through them. You can determine the 
absorptive capacity of the city in terms of what the city should be 
doing for its citizens in terms of the environment. That is what Mr. 
Buchanan was talking about. The capacity is limited and you can- 
not take any more cars. That is that. You can design it in a 
way that it will just absorb so many cars. At that point you ought 
to quit; no more freeways. 

Mr. RYAN. In the city of New York they built the Pan American 
Building. If you were to give the occupants of this building space to 
park their cars, you would have to tear down everything else in the 
neighborhood, or build parking garages 25 stories high. 

Mr. HALPRIN. My answer to that is you should not then have 
built the Pan American Building. And I think cities have to accept, 
too, that they are organisms just as any other organism. Just as any 
organism cannot proliferate endlessly, cities cannot. 

Mr. SARGENT. I wouldn't be surprised if someone proposes con- 
sideration of birth control. Is this an appropriate subject for us to 

Mr. BABCOCK. I don't know what the laws are in the District of 

Mr. WHITTON. Perhaps much to the surprise of a lot of the audi- 
ence, the Bureau of Public Roads has been resisting for some time 
the building of extrawide expressways through urban areas and 
through rural areas. So I was quite interested in what Mr. 
Clarkeson had to say, that a highway or expressway shouldn't be 


over four lanes wide and I would like to have you explain that some- 
what further. 

Mr. CLARKESON. Mr. Whitton, this is a proposed 12-lane traffic 
facility.* Four main lanes are in one direction. Four lanes can 
be treated architecturally without imposing it on people or the city. 
In this case it is an average of 48 feet in the air, so it lets light and 
air in. Four lanes of the main highway below grade go in the other 
direction. No traffic headlight glare and no head-on collisions, for 
vertical distances are too great for that. 

The other four lanes are distributor services to ramps. No one 
part of it is so big as to restrict the interneighborhood types of city 

Now in the case of protecting a recreational area, we could not 
apply this technique of reducing these things to small elements. 
These are our proposals for going through a park, an existing histori- 
cal park. They have not been adopted yet. We have put all eight 
lanes below ground to permit us to reconstruct the park in its present 
area and its present elevation. This happens to be the Fens in Boston 
which is flanked by several museums, many schools, and many 
pedestrian activities. We have maintained the pedestrian flow, 
which is the basic benefit of breaking the 12 lanes into its integral 
4-lane parts. It can be done nicely. 

EDWARD McMAHON. I w.ould like to move from the urban to the 
rural area where interstate roads are also being built and where a 
problem exists with which I am familiar. That is the removal of 
existing facilities completely, taking utilities completely off the right- 
of-way. Has any thought been given, instead of paying to eliminate 
the evil, to incorporating it into the over-all planning of the highway 
right-of-way? By that I mean providing a corridor for underground 
communication and power circuits, even though admittedly, at the 
present time, the technology will not allow full utilization at the 
electrical level. If this has not been considered, I would suggest that 
this conference make this one of its recommendations. 

Mr. SARGENT. Who is going to pay for it? 

HAROLD GILLIAM. I woud like to get the reaction of the panel to 
a couple of possible legislative changes which I think embody some 

*Mr. Glarkeson displayed at this point drawings of a highway section. 


of the propositions and proposals that have been made by the people 
on the panel. 

First, that Federal interstate highway money should not be used 
for highways or freeways through parks. I have in mind here pri- 
marily the Redwood Parks of California where we have had a great 
controversy, but this could apply to other parks as well. 

The second proposal for a legislative change is based on the re- 
marks of Mr. Halprin about the fact that rural highway standards 
are not necessarily suitable for urban areas. The present Interstate 
Highway Act has certain engineering standards which are appropri- 
ate in the rural areas and may not be appropriate in cities. 

For example, I have in mind the 60-mile-an-hour or 65-mile-an- 
hour requirement. Highways are cutting a great swath through 
very densely populated cities, and we have had particular problems 
with this in San Francisco. Maybe 200 feet wide, they could 
do irreparable damage to the whole fabric of a city no matter how 
well the freeway itself is designed. 

Would it be possible to relax the rigid standards in the Interstate 
Highway Act to provide for traffic moving more slowly through 
cities? You could move at speeds between 30 and 40 miles an hour. 
I understand that you can move as much traffic at this speed as you 
can at 60 or 65. Could you provide for slower traffic in cities with 
the possibility of using existing street rights-of-way and building the 
freeways beneath the streets for 30- or 35-mile-an-hour traffic? 

These are two legislative suggestions. I would like comments 
on these, particularly from Mr. Whitton. 

Mr. WHITTON. Well, he speaks of a law requiring a speed. I am 
not too well versed in the law, but I am not sure that the law requires 
a minimum speed of 65 miles an hour. I think it is probably a stand- 
ard that has been adopted by the State highway departments. I am 
sure that in some urban areas, they are not designing for 65 miles an 

If the conditions were such that it seemed appropriate to build as 
you suggest, I am sure that it can be done. 

Mr. HALPRIN. I know at one point I suggested to the State High- 
way Division in California that this law should be relaxed, or this 
requirement should be relaxed for the same reason Mr. Gilliam is 
suggesting, so we could reduce the design speeds in the city. I was 
told that that was impossible. 


Mr. BABCOCK. I might come in here speaking as a highway ad- 
ministrator. I think if you find you put a speed of 35 miles per 
hour into what you referred to as a highway design, something 
you referred to as a freeway, you would find you would have an 
untenable situation with the public. You can relax speeds some- 
what and we have some examples. But when you start talking 
of going down to 35 and 30 miles an hour, you come almost into a 
hopeless situation of compounding reverse curves and so on. 

Frankly, the public demands more than that, particularly in the 
larger cities where they measure their ability to get in and out of town 
in terms of time. 

A DELEGATE. I would like to know what measures have been 
taken to implement the recommendations to spare the natural vege- 
tation along the highways or to reconstruct original landscape. In 
some countries they are already trying to follow it up and I am espe- 
cially interested to know what has been done in the United States. 
Perhaps Mr. Sargent could answer the question because he was re- 
ferring to exotic vegetation. 

Mr. SARGENT. If I correctly understand the question, I personally 
feel that we are doing, particularly in our interstate system in the 
United States, a very good job in terms of landscaping, preserving the 
trees where we can feature them as part of the landscape as the high- 
way goes through. I don't think we actually plant a tree every time 
we cut a tree down, and personally, I don't think that is necessary. 
Perhaps Mr. Whitton would want to comment on that. 

Mr. WHITTON. Mr. Sargent has answered the question quite 
ably. I think that when we build a highway, regardless of what it is, 
interstate, primary, or secondary, I think we should save all the 
trees that we can save safely. The growth that is desirable to save 
should be saved. Of course, we have to keep in mind that trees 
up too close to the traveled way sometimes result in fatal accidents 
and we have to be careful about that. There is another method of 
developing suitable growth along the highway and that is by selec- 
tive mowing under maintenance operations. Your local mainte- 
nance man has a knowledge of what will grow into a nice looking 
tree by the appearance of the sapling, and he can let it grow and 
thus obtain a very fine appearance and fine growing type of vege- 
tation vegetation that does not require pruning or cultivating 


or watering or spraying. That is a very desirable feature to the high- 
way department which is responsible for the maintenance. 

A DELEGATE. I would like to ask Mr. Whitton a question. Those 
of us who have been involved in the highway conservation and 
design business in the last two years have been very powerfully struck 
by one point that Mr. Pushkarev, who is a distinguished author, 
raised in Man-Made America. That was in reviewing the trans- 
actions of the Highway Research Board of the last 20 or 22 years, 
he found that he can correct me if I am wrong something like 
3 out of 900 articles dealt substantively with highway aesthetics. In 
doing our own research in California we found examples of out- 
standing design in other States. We even found some work that 
Mr. Glarkeson did in New Hampshire several years ago. 

What can we foresee in the Bureau of Public Roads in terms of 
research and development I mean in a R. & D. unit, rather than 
in pavement loading and so forth? Can we see an enhanced effort 
to carry forth the visual analysis that both Mr. Pushkarev and Mr. 
Halprin have done elsewhere? 

Mr. WHITTON. You mean in regard to roadside plantings? 

A DELEGATE. I would like to see a little more fundamental ap- 
proach than that. We have a lot of cosmetic treatment in California 
and it hasn't made a difference. 

Mr. WHITTON. I take it you mean in regard to location and 
design of the cross section. 

Well, I think that since I have been in this business a good long 
time, I will say it again, you have seen a big improvement in road 
location and in road design during the past ten years, let's say. 

I can recall when we established a road location by measuring 
half-way between the fences along the road and that was our fore- 
sight. But now, we establish road locations by aerial photography 
and a very careful laying out and examination of the total topog- 
raphy through the area, both from the air and from the ground. 
As Mr. John Ryan has said, they even make checklists of things they 
have in the area and things that they would like to save. 

Then, again, on the roadside design, I think you have seen, and 
I suggest if you haven't that you drive from here to Fredericksburg, 
Va. or to Frederick, Md., and you will see, at least in my judgment, 
as fine a highway design as you will see in the country. It is inde- 
pendent design, both vertical and horizontal. I personally think 


it is the fundamental basis of a beautiful highway, the way it is 
located and the way it is designed. I think we are developing that 
and I think we will develop it further in the future and I think more 
States will become involved in it. 

I have to say, Mr. Ryan, in reply to one statement you made, if 
you are in a flat country like the boot heel of southeast Missouri, I 
would hate to try to live there if I were on a curvilinear alignment 
and develop artificial hills and hollows in that particular area where 
they make quite a bit of money growing cotton. 

Mr. HALPRIN. I just want to say in this regard, that we keep on 
coming back to the road alignment out in the country. As Professor 
Buchanan pointed out, we pretty much know how to do it, it is now 
a matter of doing it. Where the R. & D. he is talking about is needed 
is in cities. We have to understand that we are involved in a 
new urban form that is changing the face of our cities. Architec- 
ture and planning and urban design and freeway movement all have 
to be integrated into some complex series of things that you might 
call traffic architecture. Nobody, to my knowledge, except a few 
forward thinking people in mixed fields has been thinking about 
this. I urge you, as I think Bill has been trying to do, to think about 
doing research which would look toward a new kind of traffic 
architecture which involved urban design in cities. 

Mrs. JOHN WAINWRIGHT. This has been exceedingly stimulating 
for those of us in government to hear because the discussion has 
primarily been around design. Unfortunately, in Bade County, 
Florida, we now have to live with some design that hasn't proven 
to be very satisfactory. We therefore now have to apply the cosmetic 
approach to that portion of the interstate highway that has been 
constructed. This is not the fault of Mr. Whitton ; it is unfortunately 
the fault of agencies such as those in the State of Florida. We are 
at the point where the Federal funds are available. On behalf of 
my city I would like to make some suggestions for the consideration 
of the panel and the Bureau of Public Roads. 

First of all, we have currently been working on the beautification 
of that portion of the expressway already constructed. Fortunately, 
the city of Miami has a landscape architect that we could lend to 
the State of Florida to do design; otherwise, there is no profession- 
ally trained person to deal with this problem. We, therefore, urge 
that, for landscape design purposes, the work be done by profes- 
sionally trained landscape architects, particularly those that are 


familiar with the geographical problems of the area and native plant 

Secondly, and we strongly recommend this second suggestion, 
plans for landscape beautification should not be part of the prime 
contract, but be an individual, separate contract. Because I am 
afraid otherwise, if you let it out as part of the general construction 
contract, the beautification is going to get the short end of the horn. 
So, I hope very much, Mr. Whitton, that the Board will take these 
suggestions under consideration. Possibly the panel would com- 

Mr. BABCOCK. He agrees with everything you say. 

CHARLES CALLISON. There are two questions to the panel. The 
first one that Mr. Gilliam asked, was forgotten about. 

The second was commented on. I should like to restate the first 
question or call it again to the attention of the panel and ask for 
comment, particularly, I think from Mr. Whitton and from the 
gentlemen on the panel who are State highway department admin- 
istrators or officials. 

The question is: Should it not be considered wise, perhaps, to 
have legislative recognition of the concept that certain areas should 
not be considered potential rights-of-way for freeways, or other 
major highways? 

Mr. Gilliam spoke of the Redwood State Park in California. I 
know another such area which is an irreplaceable and extremely 
important national wildlife refuge in the State of Alabama. This 
is presently threatened by a plan to build an interstate highway 
through the middle of it. 

Mr. BABCOCK. Thank you. I don't know whether the group here 
can comment on that. 

Mr. HALPRIN. It may be easier for me. I wholeheartedly, sir, 
support your attitude and would be very happy to vote for it. 

Mrs. HANS KLUSSMANN. We have an urgent problem in San 
Francisco. That is the freeway they are trying to build there. One 
gentleman here, not from San Francisco, mentioned that the Em- 
barcadero Freeway would be torn down. He said it should be torn 
down and if you would take a vote in San Francisco today, you would 
find a unanimous popular vote to tear the thing down. That was 
constructed about ten years ago. This new freeway is going to 


extend that thing around the northern waterfront. They are going 
to slash an eight-lane freeway through a potentially beautiful part of 
San Francisco on our waterfront. 

Everyone says that he is opposed to it. Tell us how and this 
is directed to Mr. Whitton how can we reach you and the peo- 
ple in Washington, because we understand that it is Federal money 
that is involved here? They are going to put this freeway through 
and all we have against you is a little board of supervisors. It is 
pretty hard sometimes to convince them what they are going to do 
is going to be very wrong. 

A DELEGATE. Mr. Halprin, Mr. Whitton, and all the rest of you 
are wonderful highway landscape specialists. It is a marvelous 
opportunity to have your guidance, support, and help. 

We are fortunate to have these great freeways. Don't forget to 
give us some fine landscaping whereby the eyes will not be so weary. 
When driving over a long, long distance, the great highway-freeway 
runs together. There must be some fine way of architecture and 
landscaping whereby that will not happen. 

GLESTER HINDS. In connection with integrated, interstate high- 
ways, is there a possibility to have uniform, meaningful standardizing 
of traffic signals throughout the Nation? 

Mr. BABGOCK. Yes, a standard control will be in effect in 1968. 

JACK B. ROBERTSON. I want to pick up a thought brought up by 
Mr. Ryan, and my question is directed to Mr. Whitton. 

I understand you are having some problems in getting States to 
accept section 319 funds, funds to protect natural beauty, rest areas, 
and so forth. What are you doing to induce the States to use these 

Mr. WHITTON. We have written a letter to them and we will be 
talking to them to induce them to use these funds. I think we haven't 
pressed too hard in the past because frankly we were interested in 
getting some roads built so that people could see what they were 
like. Now that we have some built, I think we are in a better posi- 
tion to insist on the States using some of the money the 319 
money for acquisition of additional rights-of-way to protect scenic 

ALLAN TEMKO. To say a word of criticism, the technology you are 
talking about is obsolete. You had no one here from General Electric, 


General Motors, any of the big corporations. You are assuming that 
the internal combustion engine is here to stay, that the kind of vehicles 
we are using today are here permanently. What you should do is 
recommend strongly and Mr. Whitton, I think your department 
should take the lead in this and I think this is what Mr. Lipman 
was talking about you should develop a complete technology of 
movement in this country, as ambitiously conceived as the space 
program, and shed our obsolete technology as rapidly as possible. 
We shouldn't talk as if these rights-of-way are so important because 
they are predicated upon a single system of movement. You are 
not talking about total systems, you are only talking about landscape. 

Mr. BABCOCK. I will refuse to let my panel talk about this subject. 

JOHN J. LOGUE. I would like to bring up very briefly the matter of 
suburban freeways. Big cities can defend open space such as Rock 
Creek Park and Central Park but it is extremely difficult for the sub- 
urban areas to do so with their weak governments and small areas of 
jurisdiction. New developments and new highways are going to 
create new traffic problems and it will take real effort to protect sub- 
urban open space. I am talking about the famous Blue Route con- 
troversy. I wonder whether Federal and State highway agencies 
couldn't introduce a new principle, namely abstention from taking 
creek valley lands in suburban areas, if at all possible. We proposed 
this to the President last Sunday. 

Mr. WHITTON. The last location that I saw, that looked the best 
to me for the Blue Route in Pennsylvania, took very little of the 
creek valley that you speak of. I forget the name of it. I wonder 
if you have seen the proposed location. 

Mr. LOGUE. I have seen it. I disagree with you. 
Mr. BABCOCK. I suggest you two get together. 

A DELEGATE. I have a question for Mr. Sargent. In the event 
State and local governments or even another Federal bureau rec- 
ommend one location for an interstate road and the Federal 
Bureau of Public Roads insists on another location which in the 
opinion of the State and communities involved is damaging to the 
master plan of the area, or to its natural and recreational resources 
I believe there are about 16 such cases pending at the moment- 
could not some impartial review board be set up to whom such 

779-595 65 14 


cases might be referred for decision? Is it feasible to do such a 

Mr. SARGENT. I think it would be very difficult to get anything 
done. I think that the State is sensitive to the local scene. I think 
that the State works with the local communities. We certainly hold 
public hearings. We take into consideration the views of the local 
people and then we in turn work with the Federal Government. 
It seems to me if we have superimposed on this a further limitation, 
we would veto it. Creating a committee such as we are doing in 
our State where we have landscape architects, architects, and other 
experts serve and advise us, is very helpful. We are glad to have 
advice and criticism. But I think to have any further vetoes placed 
on our operation would make it almost impossible to operate at all. 

Mrs. J. LEWIS SCOTT. The plant ecologist should design right-of- 
way vegetation and the policy for its management. Broadcast 
herbicide spraying removes valuable vegetation such as native wild- 
flowers and shrubs. Selective use of herbicides and treating the 
vegetation according to ecological principles will insure the protec- 
tion of natural beauty in keeping with highway safety. 

BOYD MILLER. I have quick suggestions to make. The interstate 
system as it started was built in entirely too short sections to make 
any kind of natural beauty possible. As you drive through the newer 
parts you can see where the additions changed in design, which gives 
you a kind of patchwork. 

Then, too, you go through sections that have been neglected. I 
wonder if the Federal Government is going to do anything about 
that. The agencies should get together throughout the whole system. 

HENRY WARD. I think there are two points that are very im- 
portant. No one on the panel answered the question about legisla- 
tion forbidding a highway going through a park. I have spent most 
of my life in this area. It would be a serious mistake to prohibit the 
use of this land for highway purposes because it had been a park. I 
hope that this doesn't give some of you the idea that there is something 
absolutely sacred about a piece of land merely because once it was 
called a park. Land is for public use. We are building for it. I 
participated in building parks. I have built highways for public use. 
The greatest use for the benefit of the public is what that land ought 
to be used for. 


Now, the other thing, the other matter there is an impression 
here that the Federal Government is putting bulldozers out, that Mr. 
Whitton is doing this. It is not true. The Federal Government 
does not initiate a single highway project. Under the law it can't. 
The initiation is with the States. The recommendation is made by 
the States. If you don't like what your States are doing, argue 
with your State, not with Mr. Whitton who has plenty of arguments 
from us as administrators. 

IRSTON R. BARNES. I would like to express my distrust of highway 

And I should also like to dissent from the commissioner's last 
statement. There hasn't been a single park in Washington that 
hasn't been threatened with a highway. It is much easier to build 
a highway than it is to build a park. You don't build parks. Nature 
does that. The most important thing that this panel could recom- 
mend would be to have a set of values which would guide the loca- 
tion of highways and it should begin by recognizing that no high- 
way improves the beauty of a natural landscape. It is an intrusion. 
We should recognize it as such. 

Now, these are perhaps unpleasant truths, but I think these are 
the truths that represent the public point of view as opposed to the 
engineer's point of view. I should like to see the public's point of 
view at least acknowledged in the report of this panel. 

Statements Submitted for the Record 

IRSTON R. BARNES. The appropriate uses of scenic easements 
and zoning require more critical consideration than was accorded 
these items during the conference. 

The scenic easement must not become a blackmail device in the 
hands of those who would appropriate for private profit the values 
created by public investment. 

These comments are particularly pertinent in relation to new 
dimensions of billboard blight along parkways and other highways 
with respect to which public policy has determined that there shall 
be no billboards. 

The contempt of the outdoor advertising industry for public policy 
and public values is exemplified by new huge billboards erected on 
steel scaffolding above the treetops. They have been placed beyond 
the highway rights-of-way. Examples of such flagrant disregard of 


public interests can be seen in the signs of petroleum companies and 
automobile dealers along Interstate 95 in Virginia, along the New 
Jersey Turnpike, and in my own State of Connecticut along the 
Merritt and Cross parkways. A particularly objectionable instance is 
the Howard Johnson billboard in Milford on the east bank of the 
Housatonic River, which is visible more than a mile away in Strat- 
ford! No scenic easements should be paid for to eliminate these 

The 1,000-foot standard (no signs within 1,000 feet of the high- 
way) for billboards and signs along interstate highways is not an 
adequate or appropriate yardstick. A visibility test is needed. Any 
sign which is visible from an interstate highway or parkway is pre- 
sumptively a trespass on the highway. It impairs public invest- 
ment in the highway. It is a trespass on public property. It should 
be dealt with as a trespass, as an unlawful device to appropriate and 
to destroy community values created by public investment. 

Scenic easements also represent public investments. They should 
be employed only to reimburse property owners for values inherent 
in their property, and not created by public investment which are 
foregone in order to create or to preserve community values. No 
property owner is entitled to compensation, or blackmail, to prevent 
a private appropriation or destruction of values created by public 
investment. No property owner has a right to use his land for bill- 
boards which trespass on the property and values created by a public 
investment in a highway. 

Injunction suits and Federal zoning authority adequate to pro- 
tect Federal investments in parks, in highways, in national monu- 
ments, etc. are the appropriate legal instruments to protect public 
investments from being appropriated and destroyed by private 

GEORGE J. EICHER. The American Fisheries Society would like 
to make a statement with respect to highway and freeway construc- 

Too often freeways are constructed without thought of access to 
fishing and recreational areas. Not only is it often difficult to leave 
such freeways in the vicinity of recreational areas, but frequently such 
construction cuts off preexisting routes and renders such areas 

We urge that future highway planning take into consideration 
access to fishing and other recreational areas. 


IRVING HAND. In attending the sessions on highways, one became 
sensitive to the conflict of speed vs. beauty in the engineering of 

The effective utilization of time is a landmark in the advancement 
of technology in our Nation. The confrontation we face and must 
resolve is whether we face an irrevocable conflict in preserving the 
beauty of our Nation or sacrificing it to the demands of our economic 
development. This is not to say that manmade environment will not 
achieve a beauty of its own. Rather, can we retain the natural 
beauty of our physical environment while gaining the wonders of 

We must identify the values in our environment in our lives 
which are significant and which we hope to achieve. This judgment 
is fundamental to what has been extended as an obvious truth that 
the traveling public wishes to enjoy the visual scene it experiences 
when driving vs. the temptation to use high-speed highways for just 
that purpose high speeds in getting from "here to there." 

A. G. ODELL, Jr. As I stated at the meeting of the National 
Advisory Committee on Highway Beautification of the Secretary of 
Commerce, the motivation of the Federal Government in supporting 
systems of transportation has always been to stimulate and facilitate 
interstate and intercity transportation. This has been true ever since 
Thomas Jefferson made a master plan of American roads and canals 
in 1804. It is true with our interstate highway program and the 
government's support of air travel. 

Our current concern with the effects of roads in our landscape 
whether in recognition of automobile junkyards, billboards, over- 
head utility wires, roadside rest places, or recreational open spaces 
is a recognition of the fact that we must now plan ahead for all 
the areas that transportation systems affect. 

Our improved road systems are one of the main reasons our cities 
enlarge, and are a main reason for the growth of suburbs and subur- 
ban shopping centers. To merely adorn these phenomena with trees 
or shrubs is to miss the real problem entirely. 

The real problem is to design all the areas affected by highways. 
Beautification is, to be sure, an important aspect of design but let 
us not put the cart before the horse. It may be that our concern 
over the appearance of auto graveyards is the expression of a national 
embarrassment with our extravagant waste. 


Simply stated, we should build into our highway planning a process 
where design is required, indeed where it leads the whole effort. It 
is not enough to invite design consultants or to have partial funds 
for design or planning. That has not worked up to this point. 

We have already developed the technical knowledge to design 
the rural highway. We have been doing it for a half century or 

Since our urban areas will double in size within the next 35 years, 
the real frontier of environmental design today is the city and the 
key to its design is to understand how highways affect the city. Here 
we Americans ought to be making a large investment in exploratory 
design as we have done with radios, TV sets, jet airplanes, and 
rockets to the moon. 

ROBERT L. PERKINS, Jr. Highways directly destroy natural beauty 
in two ways: first by their location, second by the way they 
are constructed. The first is fairly obvious. As to the second, 
design and construction methods may bring about results such as 
large-scale pollution by silt or the ravaging of nearby lands for the 
purpose of obtaining or disposing of fill. 

There is an urgent need to provide some real balance in the process 
of route selection and design between the economic and engineering 
factors, and the other resource values, both tangible and intangible. 
A procedure should be established to give appropriate and unbiased 
consideration to all resource values involved and to use this as a basis 
for decisions. At present, little or no consideration is given to the 
destruction of natural, scenic, and historic areas and, in fact, such 
lands are likely to act as a magnet in drawing highways. 

The more successful the protectors of such areas have been the 
more likely it is that a highway planner will select those areas as the 
cheapest route. The facts that a highway may destroy such a tract's 
usefulness, for the public purpose for which it was set aside, and that 
the nearest thing to a replacement for that public purpose costs an 
enormous amount may not be a deterrent. Highway planners in 
most cases are not required to be concerned with replacement value 
but only with the highway's effect on the market value of the land's 
so-called highest and best use, as determined by condemnation com- 
missioners which use is usually for housing or for industry, and may 
not be greatly reduced by the proposed highway even if the natural 
values are largely destroyed. 


THEODORE R. ROGOWSKI. "What makes you believe a river is 
more important than a concrete highway?" 

These are the words which greeted our delegation travelling from 
New York City to the Department of Commerce in Washington 
when we met in private session to urge that a Federally financed high- 
way be relocated, asking that the highway be kept at least 400 yards 
from the very edge of some 6 miles of a free-flowing river. We 
recommended that a greenbelt, preferably with the existing trees 
intact, be preserved to maintain the natural visual beauty of the 
river, to protect the river from the oil, refuse, and sun-baked pave- 
ment of the highway. 

When we asked that an alternative route some miles distant be 
considered, the curt answer was "We need that area for the next 
system of super highways." 

We respectfully submit to this conference that there was no real 
issue of money or cost in making these decisions; the problem we 
confronted was that of personality. The planners had made a selec- 
tion of route which was now being challenged. It was a very per- 
sonal thing. And there was a professional blindness to correction. 

There seems a consensus of opinion voiced here that the Federal 
highway system has succeeded in the countryside but has failed in 
the urban areas. We submit it is a matter of degree, and we feel 
the failure has been serious in the rural areas as well. 

Our recommendation is, therefore, that scenic corridors between 
highway and waterways, separating concrete from waterways by a 
minimum distance of 1,000 feet, be a mandatory requirement in the 
highway design standards recommended by this White House con- 
ference. This protective zone would help keep the waters of the 
river cool by preserving the natural river banks, pure by removing a 
source of oil and litter pollution, and naturally beautiful by remov- 
ing the noise of the highway and the eyesore of speeding traffic. 

This 1,000-foot scenic corridor would further preserve bird and 
animal sanctuary and would allow nature trails, picnic and rest 
areas contiguous to the river all of which are permanently, irrevo- 
cably destroyed when the highway is built at the very edge of the 
river, sometimes in fact causing the river to be rechanneled. 

A definition of ugliness: a highway encroaching upon a river 
bank. A definition of beauty: the glimpse of a river valley from a 
distance. Let us not confuse the two so as to run our highways 
plumb down the river basin, destroying the thing of beauty and the 
river to recreational use. 


We would like to affirm that the open space programs will work 
only if the engineers of the Bureau of Public Roads, Department of 
Commerce, will approach these problems with open minds. 

Dr. J. HAROLD SEVERAID. The triple-decker, massive, concrete 
freeway over an equally massive and sterile concrete-lined riverbed 
in Los Angeles County represents a choice example of what we should 
avoid if we can. I am less concerned about the inevitable need for 
some such monstrosities than I am about the fact that engineers are 
proud of them. Only when the engineer views such masses of con- 
crete with the same abhorence as does the conservationist can we rest 
secure in the knowledge that our cities will be treated to a minimum 
of them. 

MAX M. THARP. A carefully planned recreation program well in- 
tegrated with the interstate and other Federal-aid highway systems 
is needed. Both mobility and recreation can be provided when both 
activities are balanced. Combining recreation and transportation is 
a practical application of the principles of multiple purpose and 
balanced use. 

Recreation should be made an integral part of the major park- 
way, interstate, State, and county highway networks. Three dif- 
ferent types of recreation facilities, depending on landscape, ter- 
rain, and other natural features as well as the limitations required 
for traffic management, should be developed at stated intervals to 
meet present and expected future recreation demands. These are : 

1. Highway rest parks could be back from the highway a relatively 
short distance, not more than 3 miles, depending on terrain and 
availability of appropriate sites. Generally the areas would be 
screened from the main highway by plantings or natural geologic 
features. They would differ from the usual waysides and lookouts 
in location, facilities, and size. Access to highway rest parks could 
be provided by feeder roads at appropriate interchanges. 

Concession facilities could be provided if the number of visitors 
created sufficient demand for them, but there would be no overnight 

2. Highway recreation areas should be located in rural areas near 
major highway networks. The nature of the resources and their 
natural setting should be taken into consideration in planning such 
areas. The type and intensity of use for which they could be de- 
veloped would depend on these factors. Year-round usefulness 
should be considered in selecting and developing these areas. For 


example, in northern areas, winter sports might be developed as a 
major feature, with hiking trails and other extensive-use recreation 
facilities as a supplement for the summer season to provide year- 
round use. On the other hand, where climate permits, opportu- 
nities for swimming and water sports might be provided throughout 
the year. 

3. Rural-urban recreation centers would be characterized by in- 
tensive urban daytime recreation use. They should be located in 
rural areas adjacent to cities where highways provide easy, safe access 
to the metropolitan population. They would provide mass recreation 
facilities primarily for city dwellers. Campsites, however, would be 
featured in some areas to provide for overnight and weekend camp- 
ing. Parts of the sites would be for particular use by organized 
groups. The new interstate highways, city bypasses, and circum- 
ferential highways could provide access to these recreation areas. 

These rural-urban recreation centers may be developed by the 
cities or by the States. However, they could be developed with Fed- 
eral assistance and leased to the communities for operation. In any 
case, private enterprise could supply the services and facilities for 
which users would be expected to pay. If public facilities were pro- 
vided, they could be operated by concessionaires as is done in some 
national parks and forests. 

Through development of integrated highway recreation facilities, 
the increased mobility of our people can be directly linked with out- 
door recreation. By proper planning and management of recreation 
areas for specific uses, the increasing recreation demands can be met 
and purpose given to our restless mobility. 



3:30 p.m., Monday, May 24 

The Chairman, Senator FARR. The average American spends two 
months of his life behind the steering wheel of his automobile, not 
counting his vacation, which may also be behind the wheel. On the 
Federal level, no other domestic program spends more of our tax- 
payers' money than does our highways program, paid for by the 
motorist out of highway users' funds. 

Consequently, the American motorist is entitled to and he de- 
serves to drive on a safe, well-designed and aesthetic highway. From 
that highway, he is entitled to see "a more beautiful America." 

I hope that this Panel on Scenic Roads and Parkways will focus 
its attention on some of the following questions: 

How do we satisfy the recreation desires of the traveler by car? 
What do we mean by scenic highways, parkways, corridor pro- 
tection, and scenic easements? 

What are the legal and financial devices to protect the scenic 
corridor? How do we make sure that engineering principles in 
highway design consider simultaneously safety, good engineering 
standards, landscape design, and aesthetics? 

What can we do to cut down the estimated $100 million it now 
costs the American taxpayers to clean up the litter on our road- 

What is now being done on national, State, and local levels to 
develop scenic roads and parkways? 

After the Federal interstate system is completed in 1972, should 

Members of the Panel on Scenic Roads and Parkways were Sen- 
ator Fred S. Farr (Chairman), George B. Hartzog, Jr., David R. 
Levin, Kevin Lynch, Edward G. Michaelian, Senator Gaylord 
Nelson, and Mrs. Ralph A. Reynolds. Staff Associate was Dudley 
C. Bayliss. 



a major portion of highway users' funds be directed toward the 
needs of the recreation motorist? 

What about the freeway in the city? Can it be made useful, 
safe, and beautiful? 

How can we give meaningful recognition to those States, those 
communities, those engineers, architects, and landscape architects 
who see to it that the roads, parkways, and highways they design 
become an integral part of "a more beautiful America"? 

Mr. HARTZOG. The National Park Service of the Department 
of the Interior believes that the national parkway concepts and 
principles developed over the past 30 years at the Blue Ridge, Natchez 
Trace, Foothills, George Washington Memorial, and Colonial Park- 
ways offer great promise to our national road program. 

In all of these there was a valuable, specialized Bureau of Public 
Roads' contribution of engineering skill and teamwork with the 
landscape architects and architects of the National Park Service. 
This teamwork continues on current programs of park and parkway 
roads resulting in handsome routes for leisurely travel. They are 
located to best fit the natural topography, taking advantage 
of scenic, historic, and recreation objectives along the way and 
encouraging a ride-a-while, stop-a-while experience. 

The same principles could provide good scenic qualities and rec- 
reational opportunities free from roadside clutter if extended and 
applied to new national or State parkways or to preselected sections 
of existing State roads or highways. 

We applaud the State of California's pioneer work in developing 
its recently authorized Scenic Highway System. Our panel chair- 
man, Senator Fred Farr, was most instrumental in this program. 

As our part in achieving these purposes, we plan to : 

1. Continue National Park Service park road and parkway pro- 
grams anually under Federal-aid Highway Act authorizations. 

2. Expand the park road program to provide access to new na- 
tional park system areas as they are authorized by the Congress. 
The President's Message on Natural Beauty proposed several for 

3. Expand national parkway studies to provide greater national 
representation. For example, joint studies by the National Park 
Service and the Bureau of Public Roads have recently been com- 
pleted on two proposed national parkways. They are the Allegheny 
Parkway, 632 miles long, connecting Harpers Ferry and Cumberland 


Gap National Historical Parks through West Virginia, Virginia, and 
Kentucky; and the extension of the Blue Ridge Parkway, 190 miles 
from Beech Gap, N.Q, to Kennesaw Mountain National Battle- 
field Park north of Atlanta, Ga. Legislation authorizing establish- 
ment of both Parkways is now before the Congress. 

We expect to complete joint studies this summer on two other 
national parkway proposals. One is the Washington Country 
Parkway in Virginia, a 550-mile loop from Mount Vernon through 
tidewater Virginia to Yorktown, Williamsburg, and Jamestown, 
thence to the Skyline Drive and on to Harpers Ferry, returning 
to Washington along the Potomac River. Part of this loop is already 
completed in the form of existing national parkways and scenic 
highways with great historic interest. The other is the Cumber- 
land Parkway, which would connect the Great Smoky Mountains, 
Cumberland Gap, Mammoth Cave, and the Natchez Trace Park- 
way, 350 miles through Tennessee and Kentucky. 

Other studies will be programed as the over-all scenic roads and 
parkways program progresses. 

4. Continue to collaborate with the Bureau of Public Roads 
on advisory services to the 10 Mississippi River Valley States on 
the Great River Road. This road embodies national parkway 
principles and objectives such as wide rights-of-way, scenic ease- 
ments, access control, and provision of recreational features en 

I would like to compliment the States of Minnesota and Wis- 
consin on their legislation and subsequent action in acquiring addi- 
tional lands, scenic easements, and access control on their portions 
of the Great River Road. Minnesota is the first State to make 
use of the section 319 authorization for this purpose. Wiscon- 
sin, thanks to the fine efforts of my fellow panelist, Senator Gay- 
lord Nelson, has extended scenic easement purchases statewide, 
thereby guaranteeing the preservation of scenic beauty along many 
miles of its highways. At the same time, this protection brings 
the promise of future visitors and their vacation dollars to repay 
the cost many times over. 

5. Work closely with Dr. David R. Levin and the Recrea- 
tion Advisory Council agencies in developing a sound national 
program for scenic roads and parkways. 

One of the most important parts of such a program is to nail 
down, as soon as possible, the scenic corridor needed for the im- 


plementation of this program. To do this, we will require many 
tools some new, some familiar ones, such as the mandatory use 
of section 319 authorization in the Federal-aid Highway Act; 
the adoption of legislation at the State and Federal level author- 
izing fee purchases with "sell-back" authority for compatible de- 
velopment and use; scenic easements and access regulation; zon- 
ing ordinances, and special Federal incentive programs to recog- 
nize outstanding work. 

Mr. MICHAELIAN. The scenic parkway system was born in my own 
county of Westchester. Back at the turn of the century, Westchester 
County and New York City teamed up to end the pollution of a 
small stream approximately 25 miles in length that rises above the 
city of White Plains and flows southward into Bronx Park in New 
York City. The problem of the pollution of that stream created a re- 
quest for a reservation of right-of-way on both banks of the stream 
known as the Bronx River Parkway Reservation. This later became 
the site of the first parkway in our country. Construction began in 
1916 and was halted because of the war; it was resumed after the 
war and was finally, that small stretch of parkway, opened com- 
pletely in 1924. This parkway was designed in an era when speeds 
in the towns and villages and cities were approximately 15 miles 
an hour. The parkway in particular in those days was a speed- 
way, because the speed limit was 35 miles an hour; and only recently 
have we raised the speed limit to 40 miles an hour. We are very proud 
of that stretch of parkway and it will be the last thing my county 
will ever give up because we think it is a symbol. From that has 
grown the total concept of a parkway system in the State of New 
York; it has been followed by the New York State Parkways, Pali- 
sades Interstate System, and so on. Other parkways were built in 
the State of Connecticut. The Merritt and Hutchinson River Park- 
ways form a parkway system linking New York to Connecticut. 

What is the concept of a parkway or scenic highway? First of 
all, from the initial planning and construction stage, what we strive 
to do is to create a greenbelt, provide a scenic vista, preserve for 
public view and enjoyment our streams, rivers, and waterways, 
strive to interconnect recreation facilities, so that they may be reached 
by a network of parkways or scenic highways to dramatize and 
make the natural scenery, with which we are endowed by nature, 
available for viewing. 


There is one thing that we must watch very carefully, once 
having constructed parkways, and I can tell you this from our 
own experience. Care must be taken to prevent erosion, and erosion 
can be prevented by the appropriation of sufficient funds to pro- 
tect not only the highway itself, but its slopes, shoulders and the 
vistas. This is particularly applicable where streams, rivers and the 
sea are concerned. Construction, where necessary, of channels, 
berms, seawalls, jetties, or other proper precautionary measures, 
must be undertaken. 

The greenbelt concept of a scenic highway or parkway requires 
an ever-vigilant attitude to prevent attrition by demand of local 
communities for their use for purposes such as parking facilities, 
community building construction, playgrounds designed for inten- 
sive use, power transmission lines, pumping stations, public util- 
ity buildings, school purposes, and the like. 

All too often, because open space area is the easiest way out, the 
nibbling begins, mostly under local pressure. 

Another facet contributing to attrition is the desire to utilize 
the parkway for mixed traffic to avoid building additional high- 
ways for that purpose. Here the pressure to convert comes from 
those opposed to the construction of new highway facilities. The 
revitalization of the railroads with the use of new equipment and 
techniques leading to a more intensive use of railroad roadbeds, 
and with the railroads in a more competitive position with other 
modes of transportation might check somewhat the demand for 
continuing expansion and construction of highways for mixed 

Dr. LEVIN. The scenic roads and parkways study was initiated 
last summer, in the Department of Commerce, at the request of the 
Recreation Advisory Council. A study manual containing defini- 
tions and criteria was formulated. On the basis of the specifica- 
tions of the manual, the States made nominations of scenic roads and 
parkways and provided us with all kinds of data on mileage, costs, 
resource groups, complementary facilities, and related information. 
These data are now being analyzed, with the help of computers. A 
final report on the study will be tendered this summer. It will con- 
tain a recommended national program of scenic roads and parkways, 
and suggest alternative means of financing the program. It will be 
sent to the White House and probably will be transmitted to the Con- 
gress for its consideration. 


Several characteristics will distinguish the proposed program from 
any other kind of highway program ever authorized. First, it will 
try to meld recreation and transportation into a new mix or syn- 
thesis. It will heavily emphasize the corridor concept; the corridor 
is the areaway beyond the highway right-of-way, which imputes to 
the traveled way its scenic qualities and makes possible a recreation 
opportunity for the motorist, whether he is in motion or at rest. It 
will provide a complex of complementary facilities, which are road- 
side rests, camera stops, scenic overlooks, campsites, boat-launch- 
ing sites, hiking and bicycle trails, and the like. It will cater heavily 
to population proximity; that is, the facilities will be located rea- 
sonably close, in terms of driving time, to the major centers of 
population of the Nation. 

Probably three or four varying-sized programs will be proposed : 
A minimum program, a maximum program, and several inter- 
mediate ones. For each of these, its estimated costs, physical ele- 
ments, service characteristics, and mileage will be given. It then 
will be up to the President and the Congress to determine which pro- 
gram should be authorized. 

Senator NELSON. It is difficult to discuss resources and the proper 
protection, preservation and utilization of our resources in bits and 
pieces, since all of the problems that we are discussing at this con- 
ference are interrelated. 

I understand that it is desired that I say something about scenic 
easements and how we have used them in the State of Wisconsin; 
that I make a brief comment about section 3 1 9 of the highway code, 
and say something on the question of zoning as well as about high- 
ways. I will also volunteer a comment here (because I don't see 
it elsewhere on the panel ) in respect to hiking and camping trails. 

First, on the question of easements: As all of us know who 
have dealt with the acquisition of lands, one of the problems we 
run into regularly is the problem of making an acquisition over 
the resistance of property owners or groups of property owners. 
We happen to have a good statute in the State of Wisconsin 
which gives the same condemnation powers for acquisition of rec- 
reation land as the highway department has for highways, ex- 
cept the highway department can condemn and take first and settle 
the price later, whereas the question of price has to be settled be- 
fore the taking under Conservation Department law. This is a 
good law. It is as important to acquire property for recreation 


as it is to acquire property for highways. We have used it to 
acquire some 170 miles of scenic easements along the highways 
in our State, 111 miles of it along the Great River Road. 
We have about 75 percent of the necessary easements on both 
sides of that highway, which is a magnificently beautified high- 
way. About 75 percent of what we intend to acquire has been 
acquired. The cost was about $1,250 per mile. 

One of the advantages of easements is that many property 
owners who do not wish to sell their land in fee are recognizing 
the importance of preserving the beauty of the area. They are 
willing to sell the easement in perpetuity, protecting the scenic beauty 
of the area so whoever inherits it or subsequently purchases the 
property may not, without consent of the State, cut down any 
trees or build any billboards or structures of any kind. 

These easements will permanently protect the beauty of this 
highway along the Mississippi River. In this case, the easement 
device was used mainly for the preservation of scenic beauty. It 
is a good device not only for this purpose, but also for acquiring 
wetlands, springs, sources of water, and so forth. Again, these ease- 
ments are purchased from farmers and other owners who don't wish 
to give title to the property but recognize the importance of pro- 
tecting it. We have found it a useful device and we shall continue to 
use it extensively and increasingly in our State. 

Section 319 of the Highway Act for some 20 years or thereabouts 
has provided that States may use up to 3 percent of their Federal 
highway funds for the acquiring of easements for scenic beauty along 
the highways. For 20 years this provision of the statute hasn't been 

I introduced a bill last session and in this session to set up match- 
ing funds on a 50-50 basis. I wrote all 50 governors and had a 
response, I think, from about 45 of them. They were all for the 
idea, but everyone asked where they would get the matching money. 
I am satisfied that the pressures for construction of the highways 
are such that the present Federal statute won't be used. 

I think it is time the people interested in conservation in this 
country start talking about general fund moneys for the purpose of 
conservation. We have attempted for far too long to survive in the 
conservation field upon fees of various kinds : fishing licenses, hunt- 
ing fees, the land and water conservation bill, etc. The fact of the 
matter is that the conservation of our resources is just as important 



as education. We have long recognized the necessity for supporting 
the educational system out of general funds of various kinds and 
general taxes. We should use general funds much more extensively 
in the conservation field. I will say something more about that in a 

We made a tragic mistake here in the Congress when the 
law was passed authorizing construction of the Interstate Com- 
merce and Defense Highway System. The Congress should 
have required that all the interchanges across this Nation on this 
magnificient highway system be zoned. We are going to have 
several thousand interchanges along this highway and half, if not 
more, are going to be ugly slums with taverns, honky tonks, and 
unsightly developments all across the country. Ours is a limited- 
access system which, of course, permits no business of any kind 
on the highways. So each interchange is an economic asset that 
attracts development. 

We did not require the zoning of those interchanges. This 
was a tragic mistake which we will regret for all time to come. 
While I think easements are an important device to use in pre- 
serving scenic beauty, I think the zoning power of the State is 
potentially more important. We have 10,000 miles of State high- 
ways in our State. We made an attempt on two occasions in 
our State to control the construction of billboards in areas of scenic 
beauty along the State trunk highways. The proposal passed one 
house of our legislature but was defeated in the other by the billboard 
lobby. I would think it would be well worthwhile to persuade the 
outdoor advertisers to join in support of a sound measure now that 
the President has so dramatically called to our attention the damage 
we are doing to the beauty of our country. 

I don't see exactly where hiking trails might fit into this panel dis- 
cussion, but I think they do fit some place. I think we can provide 
more opportunity for recreation with less money by the creation of 
hiking and camping trails than by any other investment we can make. 
We have a vast amount of public lands in some parts of our country; 
we have 2 million acres in our State. I made a proposal last week 
to a conference in Wisconsin for 3,000 miles of hiking trails in the 
State which would put a chain of hiking trails along the shores of our 
lakes and along rivers and through the public lands and the national 
forests. This 3,000-mile trail system would put hiking and camping 


trails within 30 minutes' driving time of everybody in the State of 
Wisconsin and, in many parts, less than that. 

Along all our scenic parkways and scenic drives, it is a very 
simple matter to carefully plot out a hiking and camping trail sys- 
tem and make the necessary acquisition by easement. We can 
develop a plan and get the participation of the Boy Scouts, Girl 
Scouts, church groups, and campers as they have done so magnifi- 
cently for so many years with the Appalachian Trail, which is 
maintained on a voluntary basis by the members of the Appalachian 
Trail Conference. 

I think this is a very fruitful direction in which to turn in 
connection with the development of our scenic roads and waterways. 

One title is missing, it seems to me, in this conference, and that 
is what I would call the politics of conservation. We have not 
failed the conservationists have not failed for having ideas. Great 
speeches were made by John Muir a hundred years ago on what was 
coming and great speeches were made by Teddy Roosevelt and 
by many each generation since. Fortunately, the late President Ken- 
nedy and now President Johnson have been giving vigorous execu- 
tive political leadership to the question of conservation. We see the 
whole country becoming aroused by the kind of leadership we are 
getting now. We need that leadership at the national level. In fact, 
it is crucial, but we need it also at the State level and at the local 
level. We don't fail for ideas, we fail for translating these ideas into 
political action. Over all the years I have dealt with the very fine 
conservation organizations who are concerned, interested, and who 
support good conservation practices, our failure has been a political 

It is a very strange thing to me because the fact of the matter 
is that there is not an issue in America in my judgment more impor- 
tant than the conservation of our resources: water, soil, forest, 
wilderness, and air. There is no political issue with broader public 
appeal to it because it is the only issue I know of that cuts across 
every conceivable political line and touches every single individual 
from the little lady in New York with a pot of flowers outside her 
window or the bird watcher, or hunter, fisherman, camper, sailor, 
hiker, or what have you. Some aspect of nature directly touches and 
interests every single person in America in one way or another. There 
isn't any other issue as broad as this one. This is why it seems so 
strange to me that we haven't had the kind of political leadership 


we should have had in the past at the Presidential level ( and which 
we are getting now) and why we haven't had it at every political 
level. I think it proves, more than anything else, the lack of per- 
ception by our politicians rather than lack of interest by the people. 

Without going into details, let me tell you the experience that we 
had of putting a penny tax on cigarettes in my State. Anybody who 
has been in politics realizes that it is always toughest to pass an excise 
tax because it is so visible. People oppose taxes (although they love 
the services) so that every time you put a tax on something you gen- 
erate great opposition. When we made our proposal, we detailed 
an expenditure of $50 million for parks and wetlands acquisition and 
wildlife habitat and scenic easements and so forth and drafted maps 
and showed the people of the State everything we were going to pur- 
chase during the next ten years. When we told them, we received 
editorial support from every single newspaper in Wisconsin without 
exception. Of the hundreds of letters I received., I received only one 
in opposition. The expression of opposition was not to the program, 
but because the smokers were going to be required to pay for it. 

This demonstrates the kind of support the public is willing to 
give to a program if they see what the program is all about. Our 
failure has been not to delineate a large program that people can 
see and feel. The President is providing remarkable leadership on 
this issue. I am hopeful he will at the proper time make a major 
comprehensive proposal that will meet the whole conservation issue 
head-on. I think it is crucial he paint with a big brush and make it 
clear to the country that we have maybe a decade left, maybe a little 
more, to make a major investment in preserving those things which 
provide quality of living in this country. We are talking about 
substantial general fund moneys. We must, for example, spend $50 
billion to $75 billion just to clean up the water of this country. Our 
rivers are being destroyed at an accelerated pace. The tragic cir- 
cumstance is that there is not a single major river in America left, as 
far as I know, except the Saint Croix River, that is close to a metro- 
politan area and still unpolluted. The Great Lakes are being 
destroyed very rapidly. On Lake Erie last year 2,400 square miles 
were without oxygen because of pollution. We are polluting all 
the underground water supply in this country. The Mississippi is 
polluted. All the major watersheds are polluted. To clean up our 
waters I think we must give substantial aid to industry and our 
municipalities. Whatever the cost, the return both in the oppor- 


tunity to enjoy this asset plus the economic return from restoring 
that asset will repay many times over the cost. 

We are not only talking about pollution, but of a total conserva- 
tion program. Our time is short. The job is big but the course 
is right and the people are ready to support it. 

Mrs. REYNOLDS. I would like to say a little bit about the special 
problems in regard to scenic highways as they face States such as 
California. Such States have very large areas, so that the highway 
systems are of a tremendous mileage, they have an unusually high 
rate of population increase, and are often, at least in some parts, 
characterized by a very stubborn insistence on home rule. These 
three characteristics bring about certain problems to which I would 
like to suggest a few approaches. 

In the first place, the population expansion which is very great in 
some of our western States is, of course, resulting in the gobbling up, 
at a very rapid rate, of open spaces including the corridors of high- 
ways which run through scenic areas. 

In the second place, the increase in population brings about a con- 
stant pressure on highway officials to give more lanes for more traffic 
in a hurry. Where a two-lane meandering road is going to have to 
be improved to carry more traffic, there is a tendency to improve it 
by making it into at least the first half of a freeway. In other words, 
reengineering it, reconstructing it according to freeway specifications 
which means 65 miles or 75 miles an hour traffic flow. That may or 
may not be all right. If it is a scenic highway, thought should be 
given to whether the special qualities that are inherent in the 
meandering road will be completely destroyed by converting it into 
half a freeway, to be made later into a whole freeway. 

In the third place, there is reluctance on the part of highway 
officials, for the reasons which Senator Nelson has mentioned, to 
spend any of the Federal funds which are available for aesthetic 
development. In many cases there is also a lack of understanding 
and training in aesthetic principles on the part of highway officials. 

Now, just to suggest a few of the approaches to these problems. 
First of all, Senator Nelson has mentioned ways of bringing about the 
use of the highway funds which are available. I think that has a 
great deal of importance. 

We might, to very good advantage, make funds unavailable to any 
State which has on its books laws which militate against a reasonable 
approach to the aesthetic development of highways, or to the rea- 


sonable protection of park lands. In California, we have some laws 
in our statute books now which we are trying to get rid of. The 
provision I have suggested might very well provide a leverage to help 
us eliminate such laws. 

Another approach could be pressure applied to universities to have 
the schools of engineering include in their requirements basic train- 
ing in aesthetic highway design and basic principles of conservation. 

One of the very best approaches for States which are not able to 
convert a great number of their beautiful highways into parkways 
is to develop a State scenic highways system such as has been estab- 
lished in California, largely to the credit of Senator Fair who 
introduced the authorizing legislation. 

A map that shows this system is displayed in this room, which I 
hope you will look at later. There is also, among the publications 
available, material on the scenic highway system. This system 
divides the responsibility between the division of highways, the 
agency responsible for bringing the roadways and the comple- 
mentary developments up to high standards, and other agencies 
of the government which are responsible for protecting the scenic 
corridors. Unless both those conditions are met, the highways 
will not be admitted officially into the scenic highway system. 

This system is just beginning, but we think it has great promise. 

Mr. LYNCH. I would like to make a proposal that the concept of 
the scenic road and scenic corridor be applied to the city itself, 
directly to the urban area. This may seem a strange idea to put 
forth. Everyone knows that cities are very ugly places and city high- 
ways are some of the more ugly parts of it. Who would want to 
drive for pleasure on a city highway? 

It may be that there are more people driving for pleasure on our 
city highways than we think and, whether that is true or not, certainly 
it is on these channels that the great majority of our citizens are 
moving back and forth every day in the course of their other business. 
Surely what they see is of some consequence to us. 

It is not possible to separate the visual experience into a little box, 
to say one looks only when one is on vacation. We are striving to 
improve the whole visual experience, the whole world that surrounds 

I would go further, and say that the city is potentially just as fas- 
cinating as a forest or a piece of rural landscape perhaps more so 
because it is much richer in human connotations. We have the 


means within our hands to make our city landscapes just as enjoyable, 
just as exhilarating as any other part of our national landscape. 

The concept of the scenic road would have to be applied differently 
to the city. You would not be able to control a wide visual corridor 
in any rigid manner. Nor would you be able to develop roads which 
are primarily for leisurely kind of driving. (Although even here, I 
am no so sure. There is just the possibility that we may think again 
of pleasure roads built just for that purpose. This, of course, was 
the original parkway idea, which was later swamped by commuter 
traffic.) But even in a mixed multipurpose road, there are ways 
in which you can handle the alignment, the general location, the 
opening and screening of views, the form of nearby structures. All 
of these things can be used to exhibit the city to the best advantage. 

Whether they are ugly or handsome, cities are the symbols of our 
society. The highway can uncover its rich diversity, its problems as 
well as its potentials. 

Not only can you use a highway to exhibit the city but you can so 
arrange space and light, form and color to give a very rich succession 
of visual events. 

All of these things, incidentally, apply not only to the highway, but 
to the entire movement system in the city. They can be considered 
in a 400-miles-an-hour transit system or on a walkway. 

One must be concerned not only with the view from the road but 
with the view of it. I think I can pass over that because Mr. Halprin 
did such a good job in describing how one might fit a city highway 
to the whole fabric of a city. The idea of a corridor is of importance. 
By dealing with the entire linear strip of environment and building 
it as a whole, one can completely change the visual environment and 
at the same time recapture values and begin to confront some of the 
social and economic problems of relocation. 

All of these things are technically possible now. We also need a 
substantial effort of research involving not only the characteristics of 
existing highway systems, but possible new technology and the whole 
range of movement in a city. It should include possible design ideas 
and studies of how people behave on a road. Some of the research 
is already begun. 

Now would be the time to build a prototype city road of this kind, 
to allot the design time and talent that would be necessary to show 
what could be done with this kind of system. 


Questions and Discussion 

Mr. HARTZOG. We were discussing some of these things last night 
and in the process of the discussion, a question came up with respect 
to the authority of your California Highway Department for freeways 
and parkways. I understand there has been some concern on that 
in California. 

Mrs. REYNOLDS. Quite a good deal. You see, in California the 
Division of Highways has the power to condemn land for highways, 
even if it is in park land, even though the State Park Commission 
and all the park officials do not give their approval. Well, they say, 
look, it works beautifully because we have discussed it and we have 
come to a solution. Of course, eventually, a solution is arrived at but 
we don't feel that it is always a very handy solution. 

As an example, a good many years ago, such a controversy in- 
volved putting a freeway right through one of the most magnificent 
areas of redwood groves. They couldn't come to a solution and 
finally the Division of Beaches and Parks begged for a stay of some 
time until they could do something on their own. They found some 
additional funds and made their own highway survey and, after 
they had done that, they finally got the route adopted that bypassed 
the groves. But you see we don't consider that a handy way of 
going about solving that problem. We feel, many of us, that since 
a park commission is entrusted with the protection of the park lands 
under its jurisdiction, it should be able to protect them to the fullest, 
if necessary. 

Dr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, what are the possibilities for incentive 
and recognition awards in connection with scenic roads and high- 

Senator FARR. As you know, our panel was discussing this matter 
last night. It was the feeling of the panel that there should be 
recognition for the engineers, architects, landscape architects, the 
States and communities that do an outstanding job in preserving the 
amenities by building beautiful safe highways. Perhaps this is of 
such importance to the American people that there should be an 
annual award at the very highest level. The President of the United 
States could designate the "White House Highway" or the 
"President's Highway of the Year." 

Another suggestion grew out of the recent scenic highway and 


landmarks tour made by the First Lady. She focused a tremendous 
amount of attention on the national parkways, and the interstate 
system and the very fine roadside rest job that is being done in 

Perhaps, Mrs. Johnson, you might wish to invite the wives of the 
governors of all the States to conduct similar tours. This could be 
a very, very effective thing throughout the country. 

Mrs. REYNOLDS. Dr. Levin, in your opinion, to what extent are 
most of our highway engineers well equipped to deal with the 
aesthetics of highway design and conservation principles? 

Dr. LEVIN. I think, through the years, the highway engineer 
has shown a definite capacity for growth, I might say, Mrs. 
Reynolds. I mean that very seriously. If you knew as I do some 
of the boys who have been associated with the Federal Aid High- 
way program, I think you will agree. 

Thirty years ago we couldn't spend any money in the urban areas. 
There was a prohibition in the law which said you could not spend 
any money on the highway that had houses closer than 200 feet. 
Accordingly, the highway departments were building highways in 
rural areas. All of a sudden, Congress, in recognition of the trend 
toward urbanization, changed the signals and changed the law. All 
of a sudden the rural State highway departments found themselves 
literally overnight in the urban highway business. Actually, at that 
time, they knew very little about the urban area. They knew a great 
deal about engineering on the highway but problems in the cities are 
quite different. So through the years, and I say this very sincerely, the 
highway engineer has rolled with the punches. I am confident that if 
they are given the opportunity to do so, and the money and the au- 
thorization, they will respond to the call. 

Mrs. REYNOLDS. May I add just one word to that? In all fair- 
ness, I want to underline what you have said. In ever so many cases 
we find that where the highway engineers are being called the bad 
boys and all the anathemas are being directed at them, actually they 
are only following out the directive that the legislature has laid 
out for them. 

NATHANIEL O WINGS. I would like to address myself to the general 
idea behind this whole problem underscored by scenic roads. 

First, I have not heard anything about anybody giving anybody 
anything. I think the good old-fashioned idea of somebody giving 


some of these things we need for our great country should be more 
in the forefront. We all know that we have great tax problems. 
A great percentage of the land in this country is in its original 
ownership. A great percentage is held by older people. A great 
percentage of it is held by corporations who bought it for one pur- 
pose and find that today, perhaps, those purposes are obsolete. 
I would like to suggest that, since President Johnson has asked us to 
have some imaginative thinking, we tackle the problem of getting 
open spaces, particularly along scenic roads, by appealing to men's 
pocketbooks. I am thinking in terms of the Federal tax appropria- 
tions for large concerns. A large concern on the west coast might 
pay a Federal tax of anything from $20 to $50 million a year. 
Supposing that a large corporation had large land holdings on which 
great stands of beautiful trees existed. Why couldn't legislation 
be considered at the Federal level where the corporation had some 
way to pay his taxes other than in dollars? Why couldn't some 
method be considered by which, when the time comes at the end 
of the year to make income tax payment, this concern couldn't 
offer 1 0,000 acres of redwoods instead of $ 1 million or $ 1 00 million 
or whatever it is that they have to pay to the government? It seems 
to me, we have got to tackle these problems at their source, one of 
which is the obsolescence of a good bit of this land. A good many 
large corporations hold great tracts of land and are trying to 
consider ways of using it other than as originally planned. 

The second point I want to make is, a scenic road is not a 
road, it is a corridor. That corridor is like, to me, a cruise ship. 
Once that ship is filled, once the road is filled with the number of 
cars that will travel comfortably on it, it should be cut off. It should 
not be considered as a transportation program, but as a visual 
recreation program. We have got to consider that quite separately 
from the freeway program which is quite a different thing and 
naturally has to be treated quite differently. 

To summarize this, I would like to suggest that one of the big 
subjects that we study at the Federal level should be ways and means 
of changing our tax base so that if a man is faced with the selling 
of his property, he has a choice. Instead of selling it to a redeveloper 
for a given price, he should have some way of giving it to the Federal 
government or to the State in lieu of taxes. 

JOHN AUERBAGH. A question to Mr. Hartzog and if time allows, I 
have a question for Dr. Levin. There are 57 million people riding 


bicycles in America today. In his natural beauty message last Feb- 
ruary, the President saluted this group of outdoor users and said our 
doctors recommend it. But he also said they are amongst our 
forgotten outdoorsmen and urged that their needs be considered. 
He specifically said of this particular group, that they not be 
tyrannized off the road by the motorist. The question that I would 
like to put to Mr. Hartzog and to Dr. Levin is this : 

Are provisions being made for this large group of outdoor users 
to enjoy our scenic roads and our National Park System and also 
all other scenic points? 

Mr. HARTZOG. Indeed, we are providing for them. At Cape Cod, 
for example, a full system of bicycle trails has now been laid out. 
We have issued instructions to the field design offices that in each 
master plan, there shall be considered the potential for developing 
bicycle trails as well as hiking trails. So it is definitely a priority 

Dr. LEVIN. May I say, from the standpoint of the scenic roads 
and parkways study, we consider these trails complementary facili- 
ties and we have asked the States to designate them in connection 
with their nominations for scenic roads and parkways. We have 
estimated costs on them. 

I might add that for our final report, due sometime this summer, 
I have asked some doctors at Health, Education, and Welfare 
they are part of the Recreation Advisory Council to work on a chap- 
ter on the interrelationship of health, mental health and recreation. 
I have every hope that a real good job will be done by HEW on this 

CHARLES E. FRASER. In connection with Mr. Owings' sugges- 
tion of gifts to the Federal and State governments, there is a pro- 
posal, I believe, that Secretary Udall got through the Internal Rev- 
enue Service that gifts of scenic easements to the National Park Serv- 
ice or the national government were deductible. No provisions were 
made for gifts to State parks or to county park authorities. 

Many people would be willing to give scenic easements to private 
foundations, the Audubon Society, and others, but not the National 
Park Service. Is there any method available for handling that? 

Mr. HARTZOG. I am aware of the ruling for the National Park 
Service. I think that the wording of this ruling is broad enough in its 


implication to cover the situations that you speak of. Certainly we 
are interested in such donations to States and local governments as 
well as to civic organizations. Four States now have enacted legis- 
lation to permit not only these deductions, but also the assessment of 
land encumbered with scenic easements, at lesser rates than those 
which are not, for people who have donated scenic easements. 

I think there is certainly a direction here and we will be delighted 
to follow this up with Internal Revenue to see if it is broad enough. 

Mrs. ALBERT LASKER. I am very interested to know if any addi- 
tional large supplies of flowering trees and shrubs in nurseries are 
provided or are going to be provided on the scenic highways. In 
an attempt to try to plant more flowers, trees, and shrubs, I find the 
supply is very short. If we are going to make any real impact, I 
think we ought to have some long-range planning. 

Dr. LEVIN. We have no authority to do anything with this; we 
have to go to the Hill and get authorization from the Congress. On 
the going highway programs, we are expanding our activities in the 
landscape field and I assume that the State highway departments, 
as we learned this morning, are doing whatever is necessary to rea- 
sonably anticipate this in connection with what they can see on 
the horizon. 

Senator FARR. I might comment on that. This raises a good 
point. The Bureau of Public Roads could give us some help in 
urging the State conservation departments to grow more natural 
shrubs that could be used on the highways. 

Dr. EDGAR WAYBURN. I have a comment and a question. Spe- 
cifically, a highway may be charted directly where it should not go. 
To zero in on this, I would take the beautiful, majestic 500- to 2,000- 
year-old redwoods of northern California. In two places at the pres- 
ent time, the State highway department is attempting to put the high- 
ways through the State parks, through the trees, rather than go around 
them. Both areas have been deemed worthy of national park status 
if the Redwood National Park is to be established. A stop has been 
put up at Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park at the present time. 
But a go signal has been given at Jedediah Smith Redwoods State 
Park. A freeway has been routed through the National Tribute 
Grove of that park. This is an authorized highway and only this 
summer, while we are talking, funds are being sought to actually put 
the highway in. 


Now, the question is, and I ask the Bureau of Public Roads, can 
or will the Federal Government, which puts somewhere between 80 
and 90 percent of the funds into such a thing, even though it is al- 
ready authorized by the State highway department can the Federal 
Government stop such a thing? 

Senator FARR. Mr. Hartzog and Dr. Levin. I might put it a dif- 
ferent way. What happens if an impasse occurs between a State 
highway department and a conservation agency, and particularly 
where Federal funds are involved? 

Dr. LEVIN. Normally in the Federal aid relationship that Con- 
gress has set up, the States initiate a project and the Bureau of Public 
Roads reviews it. Of course, the Bureau does review all elements of 
it and sometimes there is an honest professional difference of opinion 
between the Bureau and the State highway department. When 
this takes place there are professional discussions between the two. 
In most cases, there is a common understanding and sometimes there 
are changes made in the thinking of where a highway should go or 
where it shouldn't go. 

In connection with the particular controversy you have in mind, 
I would rather not get into the specifics of it, but I would say in this 
case it is being handled in an appropriate way. 

At some point, however, I know you realize that in any kind of 
public improvement program, at some point you have got to make 
a decision and once a decision is made, then, of course, you have got 
to go forward. 

Otherwise, you see, we would be on dead center about the high- 
ways and we would continue to kill people at a fantastically high 
rate. It has been shown that freeways are three or four times as safe 
as highways of comparable design that carry comparable traffic 
volumes. Every mile of highway that we build of this kind, we will 
in the future try to make as beautiful as we can, and reconcile them 
with the environment as well as we can. But aside from this every 
mile of highway that we build will save American lives. This should 
be of great concern to us. 

Senator FARR. Where there is a conflict between a conservation 
agency and a highway agency, is the controversy decided at the 
Federal level? 

Dr. LEVIN. In case of a controversy, the State has got to document 
its case. If there is a conflict, the State in making its submission, has 


got to indicate to the Bureau its reasons for divergence from the opin- 
ion of the conservation agency. This divergence must satisfy the Bu- 
reau of Public Roads. If it does not, we will have to disapprove the 

Mr. HARTZOG. With respect to the specific area mentioned by the 
questioner, Secretary Udall has written the State in connection with 
this proposed location expressing the concern of the department. 
We work very closely with the BPR in these matters and, as a matter 
of fact, Rex Whitton has issued memoranda requiring that the con- 
servation agencies be considered on these questions on these inter- 
state arguments. I think we are making progress. It is a difficult 

Certainly, we recognize that we are going to have these differences. 
I have a great deal of confidence in Rex Whitton and his sensitivity 
to these problems and I believe that great progress has been made in 
the last few years. 

Dr. CLARENCE COTTAM. I am wondering if the answer to part of 
this last question wouldn't be legislation? For 25 years we had an an- 
nual scrap to keep a four-lane highway out of Rock Creek Park. It is 
a current proposition. The argument we heard was if you get any 
Federal property, why not use it for public purposes? Yet a parkway 
would completely defeat the purpose for which those areas are ac- 
quired. It seems to me there ought to be some areas out of bounds 
for public road development. This could be turned into an eight- 
lane highway. 

Mr. HARTZOG. I think you are absolutely right. I think this is 
one of the things that certainly is involved in this, that park land is 
looked on as free land and can be devoted to highways. 

Now, we have been talking to the Bureau of Public Roads, par- 
ticularly with Mr. Whitton, about this. Because very recently in 
St. Louis, and also in Jackson County, Mo., they paid for park land 
and it was reimbursed under the Interstate Highway Act. I think 
if the true costs of these park lands are taken into account in the 
highway rights-of-way, that perhaps we will minimize the impact of 
these arguments. 

If it is an absolute necessity that the park land be devoted to a 
highway purpose, and the highway department is required to replace 
this in kind or in cash an equivalent payment of park land I think 
you would really begin to get at the root of the problem. The 


problem up to this point has been this philosophy, that if it is a park, 
it is free, and certainly if it is a park it is open. So it is easy. 

Somehow they seem to be able to find a blue pencil that hits that 
green spot. 

LESLIE H. GOULD. I am not sure whether this is a question to 
Senator Farr or Dr. Levin or a comment made for the edification 
of the Nevada State highway engineer, Otis Wright. 

It is nothing new for two State agencies to undo each other's 
work and nothing new for two Federal agencies to undo each other's 
work, but in Nevada we have the prospect of four of them getting 
together on the job. I mean the Nevada Tahoe State Park. I am 
talking about the new park in Nevada, the last piece of natural-look- 
ing land around the lakeshore. We have prospects of acquiring 
this land sometime during the next few months. It is characterized 
by steep rugged cliffs arising from a very shallow, relatively level area 
along the lakeshore. A narrow road now makes its own way south 
down this relatively level area. 

If we get this land, it is going to be partly with matching funds 
obtained from Mr. Udall's department. If we get this land there 
is going to be more usage of it, and already the people at each end 
of the lake are clamoring to have the road widened and Mr. Wright 
of the highway department thinks they have something on their side. 

On the other hand, if we get this road widened there is not much 
sense in our going to the trouble of having a park there because there 
isn't room for both the park and a super highway. The State park 
system is going to acquire this land almost immediately and almost 
immediately the highway department is going to take it over and 
build a road in it. We are going to acquire it with partly Federal 
money, perhaps up to 50 percent for acquisition and development. 
And Mr. Wright is going to use 89 percent of Federal money to 
destroy it. 

I wonder if this isn't going to be a problem that is going to recur 
in many of the projects envisioned under the Conservation Act. I 
wonder if something can't be done now to form some kind of policy 
that will prevent this kind of dilemma, this kind of problem from 

JACK B. ROBERTSON. Mr. Chairman, I would recommend that as 
a minimum, when you make your report to the President, that you 
would recommend at least one demonstration scenic highway in each 
State to be authorized. I believe if we can have one stretch of high- 


way in each State constructed to scenic standards or reconstructed to 
scenic standards, then the citizens will clamor for more. I think 
unless we do this in each State, the scenic highway concept is going 
to be a long time coming. 

WILLIAM GARNETT. Relative to the method of analyzing the 
need for highways, I think we have not yet made comment on 
where we stop building highways. I challenge the methods that are 
now used in determining this, the quality of analyses being used. 
I think we no longer should use only a traffic count to say we need 
a better freeway or a better secondary road, and I am particularly 
concerned about the secondary roads that should be scenic highways. 
I feel that we need more than the traffic count. We need to know 
why is the traffic going there, and take that into very careful con- 
sideration. , In California there are many traffic count areas destroy- 
ing scenic highways and I am sure that a high percentage of the 
traffic on that highway is there because of the scenic value. So I 
think I would recommend that some careful ecological studies 
be incorporated with some possible methods of surveying the 
purpose of that traffic. 

Mrs. NATHANIEL A. O WINGS. I believe it isn't a question of 
whether we have a freeway up the north coast of California. It is 
a question of whether the freeway is allowed to bypass the parks. We 
are not questioning freeways versus two-lane roads. On the west 
coast the freeway has a dual contradictory role. One of its roles 
is to take people to the redwood parks, our superb natural beauty 
area; whereas on the other hand it intrudes into these public parks, 
these redwood groves, and it disturbs, scars, and destroys the very 
experience that the traveler comes to enjoy. 

Can the Bureau of Public Roads develop rigid regulatory measures 
to guard against the using of Federal funds on routes that become 
destructive in their nature when they pass through parks and our 
most prized natural beauty areas? 

Dr. LEVIN. Well, as we indicated a moment ago, I think there are 
procedures now in effect which will have a tendency to either 
eliminate or certainly minimize the adverse impact of highway 
improvement in relation to park lands. The requirement is that 
the conservation or park agency having jurisdiction over the park 
involved must make a finding as to whether it does or it doesn't 
find the highway use compatible with park use. 


Frequently, there are instances where the State and the park 
people have gotten together nicely on this. Either one or the other 
has changed his mind about a former stand. Where the two are 
still divergent when it gets to the Bureau, then we all look at the 
record very carefully. Because of our increased affluence, because 
of things which have generated this conference, we all have be- 
come much more aware of doing what you are suggesting. I 
think in the future the adverse impacts, inconsistencies, the argu- 
ments that we have had will probably be at a minimum at least 
I hope they will. 

HAROLD GILLIAM. I would like to follow up on what has just been 
said and suggested by a number of people. The final decision on 
whether the Federally financed freeways should go through parks 
rests with the Bureau of Public Roads and I wonder, since the Bureau 
of Public Roads is not expert in parks, whether this decision should 
not rest with the Federal department which is the expert in parks; 
namely, the National Park Service. 

I recommend that the National Park Service not only be consulted 
on freeways going through parks, but its consent be required when- 
ever a Federally financed freeway is going to go through a park of 
any kind. 

NICHOLAS ROOSEVELT. Does your panel or any other group in- 
tend to establish standards for scenic roads? The possibility was 
mentioned, but is anything definite going to be done on that? 

Senator FARR. On the State level in California the Scenic High- 
way Advisory Committee in the month of June will establish 

Mr. ROOSEVELT. I mean on a nationwide basis. 

Dr. LEVIN. In connection with our study efforts we have made 
an attempt to not only define what we mean by "scenic road" and 
"parkway" but we have set up certain criteria to assist the State 
agencies, and these have been conservation agencies as well as the 
highway agencies, in order to make nominations. We have set up 
as many as eight or nine different criteria. 

Mr. ROOSEVELT. Are they available to the public? 

Dr. LEVIN. I will give you a copy of our manual. 

JOHN MACRAE. I wonder if there is any effort to make a national 

779-59565 16 


inventory of the important scenic areas and then to establish priori- 
ties to be sure those important ones are saved. 

Mr. HARTZOG. The Historic Sites Act of 1935 charges the Secre- 
tary with the responsibility of developing a national historic land- 
mark program and this has now identified more than 500 national 
historic landmarks. About two years ago a companion program to 
identify natural landmarks was also initiated and approved by the 
Bureau of the Budget, is now underway, and 16 have now been 
identified. We expect to continue working on this as rapidly as 

I might say also that we have been able, in working with the 
Bureau of Public Roads and Urban Renewal Administration, to 
identify these in such a way that they will show up when the plans 
come in for review. The Urban Renewal and the Bureau of Public 
Roads people will know where most of the historic landmarks are 
and what they are getting into if they approve that plan. 

Mr. MACRAE. Is there an absolute number? 

Mr. HARTZOG. There is no absolute number. That's all that we 
have been able to do to date. These certificates have just been 
awarded by the Secretary. As a matter of fact, all these plaques 
have not yet been presented. 

WILL SHAW. I would like to address my question to Professor 
Lynch, possibly to muddy the waters a little bit because everybody is 
talking about freeways in rural parks. 

I want to ask you, what is being done with regard to shall we 
call them scenic roadways through cities? What progress is being 
made in that direction to your knowledge? 

Mr. LYNCH. To my knowledge very little progress. Most urban 
highways simply take a strip for the highway alone. There is no 
excess condemnation beyond the right-of-way. But by using excess 
condemnation, you might develop parks and new linear development 
integral with the road. There are a few examples today of structures 
being placed over roads. Mr. Halprin talks about building struc- 
tures under roads. There is a whole new potential here. 

ROBERT WENKAM. I merely wanted to add a little comment with 
respect to freeways. When a decision is made as to the route of a 
freeway I guess we all have to live with it somehow. However, I 
understand that about 50 percent of the vast interstate highway 


system is still in the planning stage. Some of the corridors being 
selected for the unfinished portions of this system will destroy com- 
pletely or seriously damage important scenic areas of natural beauty. 

It seems to me that it would be appropriate, as part of this Con- 
ference on Natural Beauty, that a recommendation come from this 
panel to ask that there be reconsideration and a new study of inter- 
state corridors now being planned with an increased emphasis on 
the aesthetics involved and the effect of the route on scenic areas 
before the routes are approved by the Bureau of Public Roads. We 
may have lost some areas in the past, but we stand a chance now to 
save a great deal from this date on. 

I would like to make a personal comment. I sometimes feel that 
highway engineers give little more than lip service to aesthetics and, 
in this respect, the photographs that are displayed here to me repre- 
sent a certain amount of misrepresentation. I like to feel that the 
highways should be designed from the point of view of the driver 
who is sitting behind the wheel of the car and I would like to see 
what these very same highways displayed here so beautifully photo- 
graphed a half a mile away, would be like sitting behind the wheel. 

As anybody knows in driving across the San Francisco Bay Bridge, 
all you see is a mass of steel girders and wires. You can't even 
see the bay. I think that if somehow you could get across to the 
highway engineer that he should design the scenic routes from an 
elevation of about 5 feet above the ground, we will then be progress- 
ing a great deal. 

Secretary UDALL. I would first like to say I am glad the confer- 
ence was introduced to Senator Nelson who is one of the most 
effective conservation people in the Congress and a brilliant con- 
servation governor. If there were more and more people like him 
in public life this would be part of the solution, too. I am sorry he 
couldn't stay. 

I would like to say for the panel, I think you have an oppor- 
tunity, one of the finest of opportunities of any of the panels, 
because I know the President would like to be able to recommend, 
when Dr. Levin's study is finished, a bold, new program to the 
Congress next year. And maybe you should continue your delibera- 
tions and not make your report until you have had a look at Dr. 
Levin's study and give us and him some extra support for it. 

One other statement and I will ask the panel a question. I do 
agree fully with the points Senator Nelson made with regard to 


building into all of our road systems, but particularly our scenic 
roads and parkways, horseback trails, hiking trails, and bicycle trails. 
We could spend an extra 5 percent of money on these roads to in- 
corporate these features and make our roads for people. Up to now 
we have made them for automobiles and primarily for trucks. Let's 
put them in our highway system. But you can't have any conserva- 
tion program ultimately unless you have money and this is one of the 
big questions. I think that we can find sources of money to get a 
modest program started next year and get it going, but what about 
1972 when the interstate program is finished? Shouldn't the motor- 
ist who is really short-changed, in my judgment, in the present in- 
terstate highway program shouldn't the motorist get a bigger chunk 
of that money so that we could have an effective Federal-State pro- 
gram of scenic roads and highways? What about that, panel? 

Mr. MICHAELIAN. I think that's a wonderful idea and I hope 
that it can be accomplished. The countryside belongs to the people 
and the people should have an opportunity to enjoy what is being 
constructed and the manner in which it is being constructed. 

One of the points that I tried to bring out, and I hope that we will 
take cognizance of it, is that more and more emphasis should be put 
on the utilization of all the corridors that we have. We have pipe- 
lines that are being used for aqueducts, gasoline transmission, and 
oil. We have the railroad roadbeds and they should be utilized to 
the fullest extent possible and they should never be allowed to be 
split up piecemeal. They should be kept as corridors and, at least, 
if we are going to abandon railroads we should use those corridors for 
truck routes. I would like to see more and more of the emphasis 
placed on revitalizing railroads to carry commercial traffic. 

Mr. LYNCH. I would say "amen" and one other thing . 

It seems to me if we are to restudy the highway systems we should 
not only be rethinking of the aesthetic implications, but social impli- 
cations. I know this is beyond what we are supposed to talk about, 
but this is one of the critical things our roads are doing to our society. 

Senator FARR. I guess you agree with your boss, Mr. Hartzog? 
Mr. HARTZOG. Completely. 

Dr. LEVIN. I would like to add without dissenting at all, that our 
scenic roads study is supposed also to make some findings with respect 
to alternative means of financing this program and we are going 


to do this. I might also indicate that the highway officials themselves 
have recently initiated the so-called "after 1972 studies" and I think 
they are aware, Mr. Secretary, of the need to study what is going 
to happen after then, too. So we are all pretty much agreed on it. 

Senator FARR. One remark in passing. In every study made 
by others, and in our own State, we found more people were engaged 
in automobile driving than any other type of outdoor recreation 
and this was in the year 1963. It goes up each and every year. 
With the new leisure, and people wanting to spend more time out 
driving their automobiles, they certainly ought to be able to drive on 
roads that are pleasing and roads designed for recreation. 

The Federal interstate system was designed primarily as a fast 
highway system to move great and vast volumes of people and goods 
across the country. For the people who want to have recreation we 
have got to have greater emphasis on the scenic highways and park- 
ways after 1972, when we complete the Federal interstate highway 
system. A good portion of that money could be diverted to the very 
use Secretary Udall suggested. 

Mr. HARTZOG. One thing, Mr. Chairman. I want to emphasize 
the point which I think was implicit in what Secretary Udall said 
and also what Mr. Lynch was referring to, and that is, real oppor- 
tunity to develop scenic roads now, particularly in urban areas in 
connection with the interstate highway system. The part of the 
interstate highway system that to a large extent has not been 
built is in the urban areas. If this is allowed to become just a sterile 
addition, scenic roads and parkways are not going to be able to do 
very much to uplift it in the years to come. I think the real oppor- 
tunity is to apply some of these principles and concepts to this inter- 
state system that is now coming into these urban areas. The routes 
are now being selected and certainly the money is available to build 
a scenic interstate system in the urban environment. This is one of 
the things that ought to be highlighted in any observations on this 

Mrs. DOROTHY MOORE. I would like to ask whether any thought 
has been given to the fact that some of these other uses may not be 
appropriately designed in the same corridor as an automobile high- 
way and a scenic highway, in particular, walking trails. Several 
people have stressed the fact that the ideal scenic highway should 
incorporate bridle paths, walking trails, and so on. I wonder if these 


should not be kept in more remote locations. I am sure Secretary 
Udall would see the logic of this, that they should be in areas much 
more remote, much more natural. In fact, the scenic highways 
should be kept well away from such established trails as the Ap- 
palachian Trail, for instance. Yet I have seen proposals for placing 
the automobile highway very, very close to an established hiking 
and camping trail. 

Senator FARR. That's a good question for Dr. Levin and this 

committee to take into consideration. 

Mrs. MILTON ROEDEL. We are greatly concerned in the urban 
areas going up the eastern seaboard, that we will lose our scenic val- 
leys. We don't have redwoods, but we do have beautiful stream val- 
leys. We can foresee that the scenic highways are going to head right 
in to the last precious open green spaces that we have. We think it 
might be possible to work this out if we felt we had a voice in setting 
up the various criteria at the local level. 

We would be interested in working with the highway people. We 
feel that our State planning agencies, county and city, ought to be 
involved. We would like to see this almost mandatory in order to 
use the Federal funds for this kind of program. 

Mrs. PEARL CHASE. I have been waiting for mention of several 
things which I think pertain to both urban and rural roads, scenic 
or general, and that is roadside rests. Roadside services, service sta- 
tions, both urban and rural what about the bicycle paths that serve 
the universities, the schools, and other agencies which require pedaled 
access? I think there are so many different laws, so many different 
types of roads, and distances between places, that no standard can 
probably be suggested that is universal. We take these matters up in 
connection with scenic highways and roads because they certainly are 
part of the total picture, particularly the service station. 

Dr. KENNETH HUNT. We have acknowledged that highway rights- 
of-way so often are bound by costs. I would like to suggest that we 
look into legislation, making a very genuine set of criteria for pricing 
natural areas, whether they be rural or urban. One criterion would 
be density of population surrounding the area, which would help 
a great deal in the raising of the value of urban parks. 

Another criterion might be the forest type. The National Shade 
Tree Conference has a set of scales of worth of trees. I wonder what 
that would figure out on redwoods. Of scientific significance are 


really primitive natural areas, and I am thinking not only of public 
areas, but private lands the extent to which they have ecological 
research value or educational value. If we could set up criteria for 
rating lands by law, then it might be simply the competition the 
market price of some of these properties would cause other routes 
to be selected. 

Statements Submitted for the Record 

LAURENCE J. AURBACH. I would like to address a remark to 
the comment made by Mr. Owings regarding possible tax legislation 
to encourage gifts of property to State and local governments for 
open space purposes. Federal tax incentives are one very positive 
means to secure open space land for State and local governments. 
However, even under existing tax law, there are substantial tax bene- 
fits in donating property for local open space purposes. 

The County of Santa Clara has a particularly aggressive and for- 
ward-looking open space program. The taxpayers have voted bonds 
for the acquisition of park lands. We have published a leaflet which 
explains the tax advantages of donating such property to the county 
under the present state of the law. 

This brochure explains the charitable deduction that is available 
to those who give property to local governments. The new charitable 
deduction carryover is similarly available to those who participate 
in a county's open space program. In addition to the charitable 
deduction, a donor would save the tax he would otherwise have to 
pay on the profit he made from the sale. The brochure also explains 
how to make a bargain sale of property, i.e., the sale of the property 
to the county for the cost to the individual. A donor who grants a 
scenic easement, but retains the fee interest in the property would 
retain the right to use the property and take a charitable deduction. 
The possibility of reserving a life estate for a gift is also explained, 
as well as the tax advantages of making a gift during life, rather 
than by will. 

Tax incentives to promote gifts of land to public agencies are 
important; it is equally important for the public to understand 
the status of law so they can both participate in local government 
programs and take advantage of the maximum deduction that is 
permitted to them by law. 

VALLEAU C. CURTIS. In reply to Mrs. Albert Lasker of New York 


City who asked whether anything was being done relative to re- 
searching the availability of plant materials in short supply : 

There is in the Northeast an organization known as the Landscape 
Materials Information Service, composed of a nonprofit group of 
landscape architects, landscape contractors, public agencies, and 

This organization publishes an inventory report from the leading 
nurseries of the Northeast twice a year. 

They also compile an aggregate report from the principal public 
agencies of their plant requirements for a year ahead. 

This organization has a membership of about 250 from New 
England, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, Del- 
aware, and Ohio. 

STANLEY A. MURRAY. I would like to add to Senator Nelson's 
remarks concerning trails in relation to natural beauty. Trails offer 
a most intimate means for the observance and appreciation of natural 
beauty, and a well-developed and maintained trail system provides 
justification for the preservation of specific areas in a forested or other- 
wise natural state. 

The 2,000-mile Appalachian Trail, with its numerous side trails, 
is probably the best-known example of a truly extensive trail system. 
It represents a model of cooperation between private individuals and 
groups and Federal and State agencies. For over 40 years this primi- 
tive foot trail has been kept cleared, marked, and open to the public 
by the coordinated efforts of thousands of volunteers. The U.S. 
Forest Service, National Park Service, numerous State parks and one 
chamber of commerce have cooperated in the upkeep and preserva- 
tion of designated sections. 

An estimated 50 million people live within a 3-hour drive of 
the Appalachian Trail, and half the population of the United States 
lives within a day's journey. It provides an outdoor recreation expe- 
rience of the highest quality for many thousands annually. Its use 
is expected to grow manifold as more people seek the solitude and 
restful atmosphere of remote areas. It will undoubtedly be necessary 
to construct and maintain parallel and cross trails in the heavily used 

The need for a protected area of sufficient width to protect ade- 
quately the natural character of the trail is apparent. Such an area 
is termed the Appalachian Trailway and is defined more precisely in 
U.S. Senate Bill 622, introduced by Senator Nelson and cosponsored 


by 17 Senators representing nearly every Appalachian Trail State. 
In the national parks and forests, we are talking about one mile on 
either side of the trail, as this width has been so protected there for 
27 years. In more developed regions, the trailway will have to be 
somewhat narrower. Multiple-use activities are permissible, with 
some restrictions, 

It is important that the Appalachian Trail purposely be kept 
remote and wild, for remoteness and wildness a primeval en- 
vironment constitute its prime asset. New highway crossings should 
be kept at a minimum compatible with other needs. Attractive 
crossings of all highways should be provided. Special attention 
should be given to the preservation of springs and other natural 
sources of drinking water. 

Scenic parkways that would parallel the Appalachian Trail should 
be located on separate ridges of land from the trail, so that the 
primitive or wilderness environment will not be broken by the 
sights and sounds of the moving automobile. We ask this White 
House Conference on Natural Beauty to recommend that the Scenic 
Roads and Parkways Study currently being prepared stipulate that 
mountain parkways be located outside the proposed Appalachian 
Trailway zone. 

The suggestions enumerated here are vital to the preservation of 
this tremendous outdoor recreation resource. 

ANN SATTERTHWAITE. Before a massive new construction pro- 
gram for scenic roads and parkways is launched, I think the follow- 
ing factors should be investigated : 

1 . Analysis of the demand for driving for pleasure. The current 
scenic road study and much of the interest in scenic roads is based 
on the finding of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Com- 
mission that driving for pleasure is the most popular outdoor rec- 
reation activity. There has been no analysis of this demand. 

Are people on the road to escape from mother-in-law back home, 
or are they just driving for lack of anything better to do? Or, are 
people on the road for some positive reason like going to a recrea- 
tion site or just to pick up a bottle of milk at the Seven-Eleven? Is 
driving considered a positive recreation activity by itself? 

Whatever the finding, I would suspect that an analysis of the de- 
mand for driving for pleasure will have a bearing on how to meet 
this demand. It may be that recreation facilities closer to home, that 
better publicized recreation programs, or even better public trans- 


portation would take care of some of this market for driving for 

In any case, let's know what we are doing and whom we are 
serving before we forge new and expensive roads through our open 
lands, which are certainly limited in the metropolitan areas. 

2. Role of parkways. Driving should be made as pleasurable as 
possible. Roads should be as scenic as possible, both through their 
location and design treatment. However, that does not necessarily 
mean that roads should be parks or in parks. Providing roads to 
make parks accessible is one thing, but winding roads through parks 
especially linear streambank parks, found in so many metropolitan 
areas, is another thing. Many stream and riverbank parks with 
roadways near the water cannot be used for anything other than 
moving cars. This, unfortunately, is especially true in large cities 
where the recreation supply is most limited. 

Certainly the role of the parkways needs to be restudied. The best 
use of some of our choice recreation sites especially in or near 
metropolitan areas may not be roadways. Roadways, be they 
freeways with fast-moving, mixed traffic or parkways with slow- 
moving noncommercial traffic, are still essentially moving people. 
Is moving at 35 m.p.h. through recreational areas the best way to 
use those areas or the best way to appreciate those areas? 

MAX M. THARP. Bicycle and hiking trails are important to many 
people. With only limited additional cost, cross-country and local 
bicycle and hiking trails could be provided on many of the highways 
already built or authorized. The rights-of-way are generally wide 
enough for these trails, and with the limited access highways 
grade or road crossings would not be a hazard. Such trails would 
be of particular value near the cities and through the rural-urban 
fringes into the open country. 

Tying a system of bicycle and hiking trails into our regular high- 
way network and our scenic roads and parkways would open up 
the possibility for expanding our youth hostel program similar to that 
in Europe. Hostels should provide overnight facilities and most of 
them could be located in scenic rural sections of recreational sig- 
nificance. The hostels should be close enough together so that hostel- 
ers could take hiking or bicycling trips, spending each night in a 
different hostel. Providing highway-oriented bicycle and hiking 
trails would encourage our citizens and foreign visitors to take time 


to see our country and to enjoy its scenic attractions, natural beauty, 
and points of cultural and historical significance. 

Col. J. LESTER WHITE. The Mississippi River Parkway Commis- 
sion with the cooperation of the National Park Service and the U.S. 
Bureau of Public Roads, sponsored and brought into being the 
longest parkway in the world, namely, the Great River Road. This 
twin parkway, both sides of the Mississippi River and generally 
parallel thereto, is 5,600 miles long and extends from Canada to 
the Gulf. It is the only international parkway as it includes two 
Canadian provinces where the Great River Road encircles the Lake 
of the Woods. 

The Great River Road, through the heartland of North America, 
serves upwards of 50 million people (1960 census) plus the millions 
of tourists who come to the beautiful Mississippi Valley. 

The Commission commends President Johnson for his message 
on a beautiful America, which has been the objective of the Com- 
mission since 1938, for the 1 Mississippi Valley States. 

My questions are directed to panelist Senator Nelson, of Wiscon- 
sin, as follows : 

Will the impetus and the impact of this great Conference result in 
sufficient Federal legislation to complete scenic easement purchases 
and general roadside beautification of the Great River Road project? 

Should separate bills be continued to be submitted for the respec- 
tive parkways? You will remember for example, Senator Nelson, 
the Senate hearing directed by you May 22, 1964, Senate Subcom- 
mittee on Public Roads on the Humphrey Bill, S. 1672. Despite 
favorable comment thereon no action was taken because of the 
impending over-all scenic parkway study. 

Will sufficient State and Federal funds be forthcoming (and 
when?) for the Great River Road now in existence, marked with 
the Great River Road emblem and traveled throughout its entire 

Such funds are needed for the purchase of scenic easements, de- 
velopment of roadside parks and rest areas, the restoration of his- 
toric sites and general beautification. 

Only by traveling the Great River Road along the mighty Missis- 
sippi can its beauties be fully realized and appreciated. 

NORMAN WILLIAMS, JR. Some of the discussion in this panel 
exhibited the familiar tendency to regard zoning as a catch-all and 


cure-all. Moreover, some of this was concerned with zoning, and 
some with nonzoning police-power controls. 

The use of zoning to promote conservation and open space in this 
country is relatively unexplored. Moreover, this should be recog- 
nized as a special case of one of the major problems in implementing 
American planning how to define the proper outer boundaries of 
police-power controls. 

This is an area where zoning can play a major role but within 
limits. For obviously not all open land can in fact be used for more 
intensive development. In many instances some land is clearly more 
suitable for some such development, and other land is suitable only 
for (or at least more suitable for), less intensive open uses. Since 
differential treatment is appropriate in such situations, zoning is 
the proper way to implement public policy as long as the distinc- 
tions made are documented by the necessary technical work. Yet 
any such scheme must keep in mind a prevailing assumption in 
American constitutional law (and public policy) : any private land- 
owner who decides to insist upon having some economic return 
from his land is entitled to have it, either right away or at some 
not-too-distant time; and preferably he should have at least some 
reasonable choice of appropriate uses. (See for example Vernon 
Park Realty v. Mount Vernon, 307 New York 493, 121 North East- 
ern 2d 517 (1954) ; Morris County Land Improvement v. Parsip- 
pany-Troy Hills, 40 New Jersey 539, 193 Atlantic 2d 232 (1963).) 
The landowner, after all, is paying taxes on the land; and if the com- 
munity wants to restrict his rights further, it can always do so and 
pay for it. In American planning controls, one of the next major 
jobs is then to redefine how far police-power controls can properly go, 
in various situations such as this and, conversely, in what situations 
some form of compensation should be used to supplement or to super- 
sede police-power controls. (Tax exemption, various kinds of sub- 
sidies, purchase of a scenic easement or various development rights 
there are many possibilities.) In approaching this problem, a clear 
distinction should be made between those current (or proposed) con- 
trols providing clear public benefits, and those situations where one 
set of local taxpayers seek to cast a heavy burden on one taxpayer, 
for no very good reason. 

In areas of rapid residential growth, as for example at the outer 
suburban fringe, the best way to approach this problem is from the 
other end, i.e., by regulating such growth. If a community can (a) 


define the most appropriate areas for its future growth, and ( b ) regu- 
late the location and the sequence of residential subdivisions, then 
that community is in a good position to do two further things. First, 
it can exercise some rational control over its rate of growth, and so 
over the increasing cost of new services. Second, having provided 
areas for growth, then and only then can it define appropriate 
areas for permanent open space. The first is a prime concern in most 
growing communities, but the techniques used have generally been 
clumsy. (See Albrecht Realty Co. v. New Castle, 8 New York Mis- 
cellaneous 2d 255, 167 New York Supplement 2d 843 (1957).) 
Acreage zoning is often misused for this purpose, apparently usually 

Under a more rational approach, subdivision control could be 
used explicitly for this purpose, or a special zoning scheme devised. 
A recent detailed review of a well-known scheme in Clarkstown, 
Rockland County, N.Y., indicated that it worked reasonably well. 
(Upheld in Josephs v. Clarkstown, 24 New York Miscellaneous 2d 
366, 198 New York Supplement 2d 695 (1960). I was the legal 
draftsman of this ordinance. ) 

A different kind of problem arises in very rural areas. As noted in 
the same panel, land needed and used for cropland is shrinking in 
many areas; and so abandoned land is on the increase. So far as 
I know, no one has focused attention on the appropriate proper 
future use for such abandoned land. If nothing is done, such land 
will gradually revert to brush and choke-cherry, at least for a long 
transitional period; and there will be a clear and present danger of 
cheap commercial development scattering all over the place. Neither 
will add much to natural beauty. Zoning is unlikely to work in this 
situation, in the absence of a sensible and realistic land-use policy. 

JAMES W. WILSON. In our preoccupation with large-scale scenic 
road and parkway projects, let us not forget the potential in things 
as small and simple as flowers from seeds. 

The green of trees, shrubs, and grass is pleasing and restful but 
the eye delights in occasional spots of color that relieve the green 

Scenic roads and parkways offer many sites for planting large 
drifts of flowers which will reseed and become naturalized. Turn- 
outs, meadows, road cuts which are too steep or too rocky to mow, 
rest stops, campsites, stream banks, and fence rows are a few ob- 
vious choices. 


Flower seeds give civic groups and children a way to participate 
in the planting of scenic roads. The creation of beauty for the 
enjoyment of others will surely sharpen one's own appreciation of it. 

Once a road is dedicated as a scenic route, many people will de- 
sire to add to its inherent beauty. What better way could there be 
than for highway landscape architects to designate certain areas for 
the planting of flower seeds? 

Only a few flowers from seed are adapted to naturalizing. In- 
cluded are: Annual Poppy, California Native Flower Mixtures, 
California Poppy, Calliopsis and Coreopsis, Clarkia, Columbine (in 
partially shaded areas and on rocky slopes), Cosmos, Gaillardia 
(along the edges of woods bordering meadows), Hollyhock (along 
fence rows) , Linaria, Lupin, Phlox, Shasta Daisy, and Sweet Alyssum. 

These are not "formal looking" flowers. They would blend into 
the landscape as "naturally as a deer in a forest," to borrow a descrip- 
tive phrase from a conference speaker. 

Most of the flowers listed set prodigious quantities of seeds. Cal- 
liopsis, Coreopsis, and Cosmos seed heads are avidly sought by such 
valued birds as goldfinches, chickadees, song sparrows, and meadow- 
larks. The social birds attracted to the roadside by flower heads 
filled with seeds would add the dimension of movement and song 
to landscapes along scenic highways. 

Patches of flowers serve to slow traffic, to draw automobiles into 
turnouts, and to draw passengers out into the fields. This is in 
harmony with one of the purposes of scenic roads and parkways 
to give citizens a pleasant environment for leisurely driving and 

Many civic groups, youth organizations and conservation clubs 
have for years successfully planted seeds along highways and byways. 
Fine stands of flowers have been reestablished where they had been 
wiped out by erosion, overgrazing, or fire. 

Out of my experience with these groups, I would be happy to 
offer (at no obligation) advice on establishing stands of roadside 
flowers from seeds, including how to incorporate flower seeds into 
grass seed mixtures for road cuts and shoulders that are not to 
be mowed. I can also help you locate specialty seedsmen who offer 
unusual seed-grown flowers for difficult soil or microclimate condi- 



10:15 a.m., Tuesday, May 25 

The Chairman, Mr. IVES. Gathered with me here today as fellow 
panelists are a group of citizens, distinguished in their specialized 
lines of endeavor: industry representatives, conservationists, and 
Federal and State officials, who are combining their talents to assist 
the President of the United States in his program on natural beauty 
with firm recommendations for its implementation. 

Since the problems confronting the Nation are fairly well known 
to all of us as they pertain to roadside control, the panel will spend 
a minimum of time on the diagnosis and a maximum on recom- 
mendations. Thus, we hope to be identified as an action oriented 

Some of the features that will be discussed are : ( 1 ) encumbrances 
on the right-of-way; (2) junkyards and borrow pits; (3) litter; 
(4) landscaping; (5) erosion control; and (6) acquisition of scenic 
strips along the right-of-way. 

As most of you know, the normal problems of roadside control 
are the responsibilities of the various State highway departments with 
active operations in this field being the responsibility of the depart- 
ment's landscape engineers and architects. 

Roadside development is also of considerable concern to the 
Bureau of Public Roads and the Department of Commerce. Like- 
wise it is of concern to the American Association of State Highway 
Officials and the Highway Research Board, each of which has an 
operating committee on roadside development. 

Anyone and everyone who uses our highways has a big stake in 
roadside control businessman, tourist, garden club devotee, and the 
housewife on her way to shop. All of us have a right to expect that 
our highways will be safe, well maintained, and pleasant to look at 

Members of the Panel on Roadside Control were Lowell K. Brid- 
well, Mrs. Cyril G. Fox, Howard S. Ives (Chairman), Mrs. Jack 
Mamie, Senator Maurine B. Neuberger, David Shepard, Erling Sol- 
berg, and Philip Tocker. Staff Associate was Marion A. Hornbeck. 



and that they offer no incurable unsightlinesses. The question is, 
can it be possible to have and to keep all these things? The Presi- 
dent of our great land thinks so we think so and that is why we 
are here. 

We hope in this panel to emphasize some of the problems through 
discussion by panel members and audience participation, and as a 
result of the conclusions reached, present recommendations to the 
President for final implementation of his plan to re-create and pre- 
serve for posterity America's great heritage, its natural beauty. 

A large order, perhaps, but this is a larger and faster world than 
ever before, and there is no time to dawdle on matters so long 

Mrs. Fox. Beauty loves all, and I know that we are all, as the 
roadside councils have long been, against sin. So we will start from 

I was going to give a short review of what we have learned by 
experience in Pennsylvania, but what is past is prologue. I think 
those of us who have listened in on these wonderful conferences for 
the past two days and those of us who have read through reams of 
homework in practically every mail are well aware of what is needed 
and what we should be doing. But our question, as I see it, is how 
and primarily when. So this morning, I am going to confine my re- 
marks to four prime subjects with respect to which I feel I can speak 
from experience. I believe my remarks will reflect the consensus of 
all roadside councillors throughout America, including Hawaii. 
Hawaii, of course, is the veteran they have been working on it there 
for, I am told, 50 years. We have been working for 30 years in 
Pennsylvania while California has been at it for almost 40 years. 

This is old hat to those of us who have been working in the vine- 
yard through the years giving our all, as dedicated beauty lovers. 
Out of this experience comes this brief survey of what we feel is 
needed from the government to implement a program of control, 
to reclaim the highways that our tax money has paid for and to pro- 
tect them for the future and not keep on making the same grievous 
mistakes that have been made in the past. 

First and foremost, I would like to refer to the need for a national 
clearinghouse for information and help for all State roadside coun- 
cils. We had such an organization once which was responsible for 
all the rest of us being organized and starting out on the right foot. 
This was the pioneering of Mrs. Elizabeth Lawton who, you may 


remember, was the first one to alert this country on what was happen- 
ing to its highways. We learned our ABC's from Mrs. Lawton, but 
unfortunately she died in 1954. We have been at a loss to replace 
her, and we have not had a national clearinghouse for information 
and help since. It is desperately needed. 

In order to bring such a clearinghouse into being, naturally, we 
need to have it properly financed. The original one was financed 
by a foundation I suppose it was before the days when the tax 
issue loomed so prominently, but that is the second big must we 
need to have our work reclassified as educational. It definitely is 
this; we are not just a group of starry-eyed billboard fighters. The 
roadside problem must be treated as a whole. We know that there 
are other problems along the highways besides just commercial out- 
door advertising. 

In order for roadside councils to operate effectively, we need to 
have a tax ruling which would encourage foundations and indi- 
viduals with extra money and they seem to have plenty of it still 
to help us in establishing a clearinghouse for information. 

Unfortunately, our opposition has been able to write off the mil- 
lions and millions of dollars spent in fighting what we are trying to 
do. They have been permitted to lobby, to publish ambitious look- 
ing, so-called educational materials on what philanthropists they are 
by donation of billboard space, and they have been able to charge it 
off as a business expense, while we have had to scrounge for stamp 
money. We have no paid people. We are just volunteers trying to 
fight for the beauty of our country. 

Thirdly, we need a citizens' advisory council, and not just an 
advisory council comprised of interested groups. We need to estab- 
lish a citizens' council comprised of the leaders of our State roadside 
councils. They are the ones that have been doing the work. They 
know the answers. They should have their right to advise at the top. 
Whether they report direct to the President is something to be 

Fourth, and last, the existing Federal legislation must be amended 
to remove the areas excepted from control which, as we all know, 
constitute areas where outdoor advertising can flood the landscape. 
We must make billboard control mandatory on the States. We must 
prohibit off-premise commercial advertising and outdoor advertising, 
per se, must be confined within areas zoned as industrial and 

779-59565 17 


You will hear later that they must be permitted in any known busi- 
ness area. Well, that has been the roadblock for 50 years, because 
they interpret that to mean that any hamburger stand, any farmer's 
stand selling his farm products as representing a business area. 

So that is our fourth need for State roadside councils. 

Mr. TOGKER. As our chairman has stated, I appear here and have 
been invited in the capacity as Chairman of the Board of Directors 
of the Outdoor Advertising Association of America. 

This Association represents over 600 members that operate in some 
15,000 markets throughout the United States. I think I will have 
for you what I hope you will consider an agreeable surprise. 

As to the position taken by our Board of Directors and which I 
have been instructed to communicate to this group, that board is 
comprised of representatives from every State in the Union. I should 
ask you to consider the fact that we have not been entirely impervious 
all these years to the requirements of scenic beauty. Over two years 
ago our association, desiring to cooperate in the manner that we felt 
good citizens should, set up a committee and requested prominent 
citizens to help us determine what was a scenic area that was not 
officially designated as such so that we ourselves could seek legis- 
lation in the various States restricting our right to maintain and erect 
structures. Those citizens were the State Highway Commissioner of 
Texas, a planning consultant, a lawyer, and the chairman of public 
affairs of the General Federation of Women's Clubs. 

Frankly, those people could not come up with a definition that 
they felt we could incorporate into our law. However that may 
be, I think there are things that should be determined by this con- 
ference what are we talking about when we talk about a bill- 
board? I have seen photographs in newspapers I have one in 
mind by the Washington Post labeled "41,000 Miles of Bill- 
board" and there wasn't a single billboard in the photograph. 

Not too long ago, an item appeared in the California newspaper 
quoting Governor Brown as condemning ugly and willy-nilly adver- 
tising billboards. 

One of our representatives wrote Governor Brown and asked him 
what he was talking about. I read from his reply 

I am afraid that I was either misquoted or you did not read the 
statement correctly. What I said was, that the sizes of the billboards 


on the highways were uniform and well spaced. I was complaining 
about the little ones which, without rhyme or reason, are all over 
used car lots and real estate offices in the beautiful countryside of 
Sacramento County. I don't think you have anything to do with 
these. But you really should try to help me get rid of them. 

Well, I urge that all of you, when you discuss billboards and 
condemn them, make clear what you are talking about. Are you 
talking about business identification signs or are you talking about 
other structures or are you talking about both? But make it clear. 

Finally, I heard Secretary Udall this morning refer to bull- 
dozing for building highways. There also can be a bulldozing 
approach to natural beauty. I have before me from the New York 
Herald Tribune, the Sunday edition, May 23, an article that should 
give some cause for thought. Petroleum marketers were told last 
week that most traveling motorists apparently have some preferences 
that conflict with beautification standards set for the interstate high- 
way system. A recent survey indicates most traveling motorists 
would prefer more gasoline and service stations along the State 
highway system than the national standards allow. 

Results of the survey conducted in California, Oregon, Wash- 
ington and Arizona by the Western Oil & Gas Association disclosed 
that 80 to 81 percent of the 3,516 traveling motorists interviewed 
thought each State should permit service stations to have highway 
informational or advertising signs. The suggested distance between 
the advertising sign and the service was most often within a range 
of two miles or less. Nearly half of those who thought highway signs 
were the best method for alerting motorists also favored more than 
one sign per station. About 92 percent favored signs identifying 
gasoline by brand. 

Well, I would suggest that when you consider this beautification 
you give some thought to the interest of the traveling motorist. 

Now, despite all this, we are not insensitive to the times and I would 
like at this time to read a statement that I have been instructed to 
issue on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Outdoor Advertis- 
ing Association of America. 

I will conclude on that statement. 

In future generations, among the notable achievements of the 
Johnson administration will be the awareness the President and the 


First Lady have created among Americans everywhere of the need 
to beautify our country. 

The standardized outdoor advertising industry can play an impor- 
tant role in the President's beautification program through the loca- 
tion, relocation or, in certain areas, the removal of its structures. It 
is entirely consistent to preserve this important medium of commer- 
cial communication and at the same time to develop a more beauti- 
ful America. 

The American countryside in the last half of this century should 
properly be preserved for the enjoyment of all Americans. Bill- 
boards have no place in the scenic areas of our highways. Cities and 
towns, too, in the last half of the 20th century should and must be 
places of beauty. They must also be vital and productive for a grow- 
ing America. Within this framework, outdoor advertising as a serv- 
ice business stands as a vehicle to communicate commercial and 
public service messages in the interest of the public as well as the 
American business system. Outdoor advertising will, in the future, 
relate to the environment of the community, and we will support 
legislation and engage in a voluntary effort to meet these ends. 

Outdoor Advertising Association of America, representing the 
standardized outdoor advertising medium, pledges its enthusiastic 
and aggressive support of legislation embodying the following prin- 
ciples in furtherance of President Johnson's beautification program : 

1 . We will restrict our outdoor advertising structures to those areas 
zoned for business and industry or predominantly used for business 
and industry. 

2. We will remove outdoor advertising structures from areas other 
than those zoned or used for business or industry in accordance with 
equitable and appropriate regulations. 

3. We will assign priority to the removal of structures in relation 
to the importance this may bear to the improvement of scenic views. 

4. Regardless of zoning, or business use, we will voluntarily re- 
frain from building structures in locations which may interfere with 
scenic or historic areas. 

This is what we propose to the President of the United States. 

Senator NEUBERGER. I am glad to hear through the words of Mr. 
Tocker that the Outdoor Advertising Association is going to some- 
what emulate the American Medical Association. After years of 
opposing control of billboards as the AMA did Medicare programs, 
they have finally and reluctantly been dragged in. 


I am reminded a little bit of one of the recreation activities that we 
used to have in Portland, Oreg., which was to take young people down 
to the Union Station to see the trains pull out for Chicago. Great, 
yellow-painted Union Pacific diesel engines would be there, and 
it was great excitement to see them pull out. One time a little boy 
had his hand on the engine as the wheels slowly began to move and 
as it pulled out of the station, he said, "Whee, daddy, I pushed it." 

For some time it has been a spring ritual, like the swallows return- 
ing to Capistrano, for Senator John Sherman Cooper of Kentucky 
and me when we met, maybe, at a party or on the little tram going 
over to the Senate to discuss reintroducing our billboard bill. He 
would say to me, or I would say to him: "getting time to think 
about reintroducing the billboard control bill" and that time is 
with us again. 

We have legislated piecemeal by offering a carrot instead of a 
stick to induce States to come into the billboard control orbit. 

Now, with the present law expiring in June of this year, Senator 
Cooper and I and other members of the Congress are tired of this 
method of legislating, and with the help of the President of the 
United States, and, I gather, with the Outdoor Advertising Associa- 
tion and many other groups, we are about to introduce a bill which 
has no more of this hanky panky. I hope this bill says from now 
on out: "If you want any money from the Federal Government 
for your interstate highway system, control those billboards." That's 
what we are going to work for. 

I have heard this old story about self-policing by various industries 
for all of my legislative life, which goes back only to 1950. It doesn't 
work, my friends, until there is a law or the threat of a law or the 
threat of activity from big pressure groups. This time I hope it is 
the public. These people don't police themselves. They don't re- 
move billboards. They don't control them. But when they see that 
we mean business, then of course they want to come around. 

Now, let me tell you of my experience in the Oregon legislature. 
We are proud of the scenic beauty of our State. As you are going to 
hear from the distinguished lady from Hawaii, we know about Switz- 
erland, we know of many other scenic areas where the people take a 
great deal of pride in conserving. So we attempted to set up bill- 
board control in scenic area preservation activities in the State of 
Oregon. Who was there to be lobbying against it with all its might 
and money and strength? The billboard industry the Outdoor 


Advertising Association. And what was the motto and the theme 
and the cry of their lobbyist to us? Why, these highways are not just 
confined to the limits of one State, this is a national problem. (This 
was before the interstate highway system was set up, but it was 
being anticipated.) Let's make this a national beautification pro- 
gram. They helped to defeat the legislation. 

Well, it wasn't very long, just a matter of four years, until I found 
myself living in Washington, D.C., where my husband was a mem- 
ber of the Senate. And I used to sit in regularly on the highway 
department hearings and lo and behold, my old friend, the lobbyist 
from Salem, Oreg., was there and what was he saying? This is not 
a national problem ; this is an individual State problem. 

Well, we are a little more sophisticated about it now. But let me 
tell you that self -policing doesn't work. You've got to have a law ! 

What has the Federal Government attempted to do? It has at- 
tempted to coax, by offering the bonus. Twenty States out of 50, 
have passed legislation to conform to the Federal law and the De- 
partment of Commerce standards. But how much money has been 
paid out because people were willing to conform or control? Less 
than half a million dollars about $450,000 along all these miles of 
interstate highways. Why? Because they haven't been able to 
control billboards in most cases. 

In fact, the fault of the present law and restriction is that it only 
applies to rights-of-way that were acquired since July 1, 1956. In 
many places, the new highway, of course, was built along existing 
rights-of-way and this is where we have been hamstrung even 
though we have been conforming with the Department of Com- 
merce standards. It is because we used our existing rights-of-way. 
I think that the law simply has to be changed to make this much 
more effective. I enjoyed the comments of Mrs. Fox about the tax 
deductible item which has proliferated some of the worst abuses 
along the highway. 

Let me come back to Oregon once more to show you an example 
of what can be done. 

Just a short time ago I was in Oregon and traveled over a new 
freeway through our city. It is depressed and, therefore, runs under 
existing streets. This necessitated a lot of banks. It is very new; 
it has been open only a very short time, and yet those banks are 
beautifully planted with azaleas and scotch broom. It is pretty 
now, but you can foresee what it is going to be. Of course, we are 


unique because you can't stop things from growing there. But I am 
concerned with more than billboards. I am concerned with plant- 
ing and beautification. But as a member of the U.S. Senate, I am 
going to do everything I can, and I need your help, to see that this 
scourge of billboards along our highways is done away with. 

Mrs. MARNIE. There are no commercial billboards in Hawaii. 
The absence of billboards and the opposition to them is a publicly 
accepted island tradition and custom. Visitors are impressed and 
many inquire how this was accomplished. 

This enviable position has only been attained and maintained 
through the support of civic-minded citizens, businessmen, local 
newspapers, responsible government officials, and through the hard 
work and constant vigilance of the Outdoor Circle. 

The Outdoor Circle is a 50-year-old women's organization dedi- 
cated to the preservation and enhancement of Hawaii's natural 
beauty. This group of dedicated volunteers promotes a broad pro- 
gram of city beautification. Today, Hawaii is reaping the benefits 
of the early work of this group of women. 

One of the projects undertaken by the Outdoor Circle, in 1913, 
was to rid the city of billboards completely. It is difficult to 
visualize that billboards formerly disfigured the highways of Hono- 
lulu, the slopes of Diamond Head, the slopes of Punchbowl, which 
today is the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, and, even 
the famous scenic site, Nuuanu Pali. 

The elimination of billboards in Hawaii is part of our State's his- 
tory. More than 14 years of hard, uphill work were required to 
convince local and mainland merchants that billboards were not 
going to permanently deface the landscape of Hawaii. The final 
outcome was that members of the Outdoor Circle bought out the 
local billboard company with money which they raised these 
women owned a business which they promptly scrapped. 

The only real weapon the Circle had was the overwhelming sup- 
port of public opinion. 

Alert to the need of legislative control, the Outdoor Circle, in 1927, 
proposed a bill regulating billboards. That bill passed both houses 
of the legislature and was signed by the governor. 

A major part of the Circle's efforts in promoting city beautifi- 
cation has been devoted to sign control. The Honolulu city and 
county sign ordinance was the joint endeavor of the city, the 
Outdoor Circle, the Honolulu Chamber of Commerce, Honolulu 


architects, and the sign manufacturers. Today, all counties have 
similar ordinances governing the size, placement, and construction 
of signs relating to businesses conducted on the premises. 

Hawaii had no difficulty, in 1961, in qualifying for Federal funds 
for prohibiting billboards adjacent to the Interstate and Defense 

Recently, the Circle appealed to Gov. John A. Burns to update 
the existing statutes relating to outdoor advertising. As a result, 
identical bills were introduced in the 1965 legislature as an adminis- 
tration bill. The proposed bill covers all outdoor advertising de- 
vices . . . and establishes the principle that advertising of any 
activity is allowed only on the premises where that activity is car- 
ried on. Signs continue to be subject to regulation by the counties. 

This proposed bill is now in a joint conference committee, having 
passed both houses of the legislature. Committee reports stated that, 
with the bill's passage, the public welfare and public interest will be 
better served, and the natural beauty of the State better preserved 
. . . that benefits can be expected for the State in the scenic roads 
and parkways program. The only real controversy is the political 
poster provision. With the current problems of reapportionment, 
the State legislature is presently recessed. When it reconvenes, we 
are hopeful that the Outdoor Advertising bill will be enacted. 

I would not want to give the impression that Hawaii is without 
sign problems. The work of sign control is continuous. The Hono- 
lulu City and County Sign Ordinance is presently being challenged 
through the deliberate erection of illegal signs. 

Our organization devotes a great deal of time to answering corre- 
spondence from many groups national and international seeking 
information on billboard control and all phases of city beautification. 
It is evident that a national clearinghouse for the countless organiza- 
tions interested in promoting the preservation of natural beauty is 
definitely needed. 

No one can say it better than Grady Clay, editor of Landscape 
Architecture Quarterly. In his editorial in the July 1962 edition, 
he states : 

We have much to build upon, a host of existing groups with com- 
mon interest in improvement. . . . They need a clearinghouse; a 
reference center; a source of guidance, advice, and help. Thus, they 
can rise above local partisanship, remain above self-seekers, overcome 


public apathy, fight uglification, and help create a more beautiful 

ERLING D. SOLBERG. Roadside zoning regulations may be applied 
by local and State governments and perhaps by Federal agencies. 
Regulations may include use, setback, building height, design, and 
other regulations needed to attain desired objectives. 

Roadside zoning at local levels is often ineffective. Local govern- 
ments are badly fragmented but the roads go through. Regulations 
are ineffective, due to local pressures. Zoning is not retroactive and 
cannot correct mistakes that occur before zoning. Zoning powers 
are permissive rather than mandatory. Many local governments 
fail to zone. Although three-fourths of our 3,000 counties have 
zoning powers, less than 450 have zoned. Also, only about 10 per- 
cent of the Nation's 17,000 organized towns or townships have 

Zoning regulations are applied directly by nearly a dozen States, 
usually for local areas. Zoning regulations, applied either by the 
State legislature or by selected State agencies, are found in Florida, 
Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and 
Hawaii, among other States. 

Hawaii empowers and directs a State land use commission to 
place all land in the islands in one or another of four kinds of zoning 
districts agricultural, conservation, rural, and urban. Counties 
may apply additional zoning regulations in all districts except con- 
servation, but their regulations must not conflict with those applied 
by the State zoning ordinance. 

Direct zoning by the State occurs where State interests are directly 
affected by local land use, major zoning benefits are nonlocal, a State 
agency benefits materially, or local zoning is ineffective. 

Among recent Federal promptings of local zoning are a 1964 act, 
which empowers the Secretary of the Interior to withhold sale of 
certain lands pending adoption of suitable local zoning ordinances, 
and two bills, H.R. 797 and S. 897, 89th Congress, 1st session, which 
respectively propose creation of a national recreational area in Trinity 
County, Calif., and Saint Croix National Scenic Waterway in Minne- 
sota and Wisconsin. Both bills propose suspension of eminent do- 
main powers so long as an applicable local zoning ordinance, 
approved by the Federal administrator, is in force. But such sus- 
pension shall cease if any property is subjected to a zoning variance, 
exception, or use in violation of the approved zoning ordinance. 


Three suggestions for Federal roadside zoning might be considered. 
First, the Secretary of Commerce might be empowered to acquire by 
purchase or condemnation title or lesser interests in roadside lands 
now used for automobile graveyards, billboards, or other distracting 
uses. Similar powers might be conferred concerning roadside lands 
on which distracting uses are about to be established. Eminent 
domain powers as to the latter lands might be suspended so long as 
a local or State zoning ordinance, approved by the Secretary is in 
force and applicable to the particular lands. 

Second, the Secretary might be empowered and directed to zone 
roadside strips of stated widths along selected classes of highways. 
Zoning powers might be limited to use, setback, height, design and 
other regulations needed to attain Federal objectives. The zoning 
regulation would prevent establishment of new unsightly uses and 
structures. Existing nonconformities might be abated by amortiza- 
tion, purchase or condemnation, penalties, fees and assessments, in- 
come tax incentives and penalties, screening, or landscaping. 

Finally, the Secretary might be granted standby zoning powers to 
be exercised if a local government or the State, after notice and 
within a stated period, fails to zone the roadside involved. 

Mr. SHEPARD. I take as my job in this panel presentation to do 
two things: one, make very briefly a remark of my own and sec- 
ond, to extend somewhat the indication that Dr. Solberg has already 
given you very effectively, that the total time of our preliminary 
discussions in the panel was not spent only on billboard advertising. 

I take as my text what I thought a very commendable remark 
of TVA Chairman Wagner in the discussion earlier this morning; 
namely, "Beauty as well as economic strength." 

A constructive examination of roadside controls must take into 
consideration the relationships between the various elements of the 
integrated whole and the balances which have to be struck because 
of the competition between those elements for limited funds. 

The basic requirement: a safe and efficient highway takes as 
it should take the bulk of the funds provided for a highway pro- 
gram. Those parts of the available funds to be devoted to screen- 
ing junkyards, acquiring and protecting areas adjacent to Federal 
or other highways, and related protection and enhancement of nat- 
ural beauty can be excellent investments. Funds so invested, how- 
ever, are not then available strictly for the design, engineering, 


construction, and maintenance of what I learned the day before 
yesterday is referred to by the experts as the "traveled way." 

The choices necessarily to be made between these competing de- 
mands are often not easy to make. The coordination between 
them so far as I can see has been done in spotty fashion, some 
authorities turning in a good coordinating performance and others 
not so good. I suppose this must be about par for the course. 

The development of the relationships between Federal, State, and 
local authorities as discussed yesterday by the panel of which Mr. 
Goddard was chairman is surely crucial to successful coordination 
of the very diverse but connected elements in a complicated problem. 
The demands for the right kinds of roadside controls have to be 
coordinated by the appropriate authority with the competing de- 
mands arising from other parts of the whole highway program. 

In the preliminary discussions in our panel, the areas hardest to 
coordinate well became evident quickly. Not necessarily in the 
order of importance and certainly not in the order of the intensities 
of the heat generated in the discussion of them, they could be 
listed as: 

1. How to get the State and local authorities to take the best 
advantage of available Federal help for the protection of natural 

2. How best to protect against impairment of natural beauty by 
advertising devices. 

3. What to do about the champion eyesores: automobile grave- 
yards, junkyards, borrow banks, and spoil areas. 

4. How to prevent litter on the highway or roadside. 

As the report presented by our chairman shows, we made some 
progress toward some good recommendations, and we got stuck in 
our efforts to agree on one or two others. This shows there is more 
work to be done on roadside controls and that will be no sur- 
prise to anybody. But then, what panel did solve all the problems? 

STATEMENT OF MR. BRIDWELL.* For most Americans, roadside 
areas are a part of their daily environment. The character of that 
environment depends largely on the use or the misuse that is 
made of the land adjacent to the public thoroughfares. 

Except where highways traverse publicly owned land, the areas 
adjacent to our highways are privately owned. The Federal Gov- 
ernment, of course, has no direct jurisdiction in such instances to 

*In Mr. Bridwell's absence, this paper was read by Mr. Hornbeck. 


determine the land use. That is a matter resting within the sovereign 
power of the States and their political subdivisions. 

Despite this lack of jurisdiction to prescribe land use, the Federal 
Government can do much toward insuring that areas adjacent to 
Federal-aid highways are beautiful and attractive. 

I suggest that the Federal Government can and should take, with 
Congressional approval, the following action : 

1. The States should be required to expend a portion of their 
Federal-aid highway funds for the preservation, restoration, and 
enhancement of beauty in roadside areas. 

Under existing law, the States can, in their discretion, use a portion 
of their Federal-aid highway funds to purchase adjacent strips of 
land of limited width in order to preserve scenic beauty. They can 
also use funds for landscaping within the rights-of-way. But the 
authority is limited in scope and is discretionary with the States. It 
needs to be broadened and made mandatory. 

The Secretary of Commerce should be given authority to waive 
the mandatory requirement if he finds the expenditure would not 
be in the public interest. In some States the funds might be better 
spent for construction or other purposes. 

2. The Congress should enact legislation conditioning the grant 
of Federal-aid highway funds with the requirement that the erection 
and maintenance of all outdoor advertising signs be controlled in 
accordance with Federal requirements. Enactment of such legisla- 
tion is essential if President Johnson's goal is to be realized. 

Legislation enacted by the Congress should prohibit all off -premise 
advertising in areas within 1,000 feet of the outer edge of pavement 
of the Federal-aid primary and the Interstate System of Highways, 
except for those areas which are zoned commercial or industrial or 
where the land use is in fact commercial or industrial. 

(Mr. HORNBECK. Departing from Mr. Bridwell's speech: I want 
to say that the billboard industry gets blamed for a great deal of the 
blight which is due to the so-called small signs. I want to assure Mr. 
Tocker, whom I have known for two years and whom I hold in high 
regard, that our concern with the roadside environment includes all 
signs, displays, and devices and is not confined solely to billboards.) 

Off-premise brand named advertising is not essential to the needs 
of the traveling public. Information such as lodging, restaurants, 
automobile services, and other information in the interest of the 


traveling public can be provided in ways that avoid the visual aggres- 
sions of forced viewing and respect the right of the motorist to be let 

In this connection, it is encouraging to note that the courts are 
beginning to recognize that outdoor advertising involves not so much 
a use of private property, but principally and primarily a use of the 
public thoroughfares. 

3. The Federal Government should furnish technical assistance 
to the States and local communities and should work closely with 
them as well as civic groups and organizations. 

Mr. IVES. I would like to take a few minutes myself on a 
subject that hasn't been discussed too much and to comment very 
briefly as a member of the team that is primarily charged with 
roadside control. Apparently there is a lack of understanding as to 
what highway departments do, and the people that work with 
them the landscape architects and the manner in which they oper- 
ate. I am not going to dwell on it. I just hope there will be a little 
better understanding of the highway administrator's problem in that 
he is concerned not only with throughways and expressways, but 
secondary roads, scenic roads, and he has been working on it for 
years. The only commodity that he doesn't have in order to imple- 
ment this thing is money. 

I would like to talk just for a moment on a subject that is very 
close to my heart and it should be to every individual in this great 
conference and that is the problem of litter. 

Now, no matter what this conference recommends, no matter 
what legislation is passed, no matter how we regulate things, no mat- 
ter what improvements we make in any activity that is being dis- 
cussed here today, we are still faced with the problem of litter. 

In the highway field, it is a serious thing. It costs the highway 
users a minimum of $100 million a year, enough to build a couple 
of miles of super highways and expressways in each State, and eight 
miles of secondary road. 

For example, it costs 32 cents to pickup one piece of litter which 
may be worth two cents. 

The question that I propose to the conference, is it worth it? 
As far as this panel is concerned, I think I can speak for them. We 
will probably come up with some pretty stiff recommendations to 
control this litter. It is getting worse instead of better and I don't 
know how to control it. 


Questions and Discussion 

LAURENCE JAY AURBACH. I would like to speak from the point of 
view of local government. The control of roadside uses is almost 
entirely a matter of local control. 

I would like to suggest that the Federal Government could 
help local government tremendously by suggesting standards or pro- 
posing a model ordinance for local governments to adopt relating 
to roadside control. 

This would relate to signs, billboards, to architectural control, and 
perhaps have a retroactive effect so it could upgrade areas already 

The second point that I would like to make is this: this panel 
seems to assume that commercial and industrial areas that are either 
used or zoned as such should be excepted from a prohibition of 
off-site advertising. I would like to contest that assumption. From 
the point of view of the user of the road, there is no reason to except 
any area from desirable control. So before this becomes conven- 
tional wisdom, let's examine this supposition. 

Mrs. RALPH A. REYNOLDS. As far as I know, and as far as I have 
been able to find out, no State has acted on the suggestion of the 
Bureau of Public Roads in its standards for interstate highways. This 
suggestion is that all off-premise advertising signs, that is, bill- 
boards, be removed and that small-size signs for motorist services be 
placed on information panels in information sites within roadside 
rest areas. Implementation of this plan is most desirable for it would 
give the motorist the information he needs and make billboard adver- 
tising unnecessary. 

I want to make two recommendations : 

1. That this conference call on the outdoor advertising industry 
to take immediate steps in those States which have enacted laws con- 
forming to Federal requirements to implement the information site 
plan; voluntarily, to remove their conventional billboard signs when 
the information site is operational. They may find that the informa- 
tion site will provide a new source of profit, and at the same time the 
industry can become a public benefactor. 

2. That this conference call on the States which have complied 
with the Federal standards to implement as soon as possible the in- 
formation site plan on their interstate highways with or without co- 
operation from the outdoor advertising industry, and that this con- 


ference call on the Bureau of Public Roads to lend every possible 
assistance to the States in working out satisfactory formulas for such 

Mr. IVES. This again bears out my contention that there is 
perhaps not quite enough communication between interested parties 
and what the Bureau of Public Roads and the various State high- 
way departments are doing in the roadside rest areas and service 
areas throughout the Nation. 

Many of these things are already accomplished in the area that 
you suggested, and many of them are being planned. So there is 
much reason for hope. 

HENRY D. HARRAL. It seemed yesterday that the people in this 
conference either did not want roads or highways, or that if they did 
want them, they wanted them to be built by certain private pressure 
interests. I think that this conference should try to build a working 
relationship between the highway administrator and the other groups 
interested in beauty. 

The highway engineer was characterized as an insensitive person. 
I don't think that is true. I have known too many of them. In our 
area, we are working on roadside development improvement, in- 
cluding the elimination of billboards. The present billboard control 
bill before our legislature is more strict than any the Federal Gov- 
ernment has proposed. I would be very happy to have billboard 
control made mandatory at the Federal level. But I think it is 
necessary for everybody in this room and at this conference, who is 
interested in the promotion of natural beauty not to condemn the 
highway design engineer. I think he is moving ahead in aesthetic 
design just as fast as the general public will let him move. 

Some of the things we are doing now, we would not have been 
able to do under any circumstances with Federal aid 15 years ago. 
We are moving ahead and we want to work with you. I don't think 
highway designers and builders should be whipping boys. We are 
working with the people here, not against them. 

Mr. IVES. I don't think we should feel too sorry for high- 
way administrators. I get whacked every day. This is nothing new. 
But I do think that there should be greater communication and more 
public dissemination of information as to what various people who 
attend this conference are doing, and I am hoping there will be a 
general exchange of information. 


Mrs. J. MELVIN NELSON. I have a question I should like to ask 
you, Mr. Chairman. 

In view of what we are trying to do in this beautification confer- 
ence and in view of what our President has suggested, why is it that 
there is a representative of the outdoor advertising industry sitting 
on this panel, considering their defamation of scenic views? They 
are one of the most destructive elements of beauty in this country, and 
I am talking about all kinds of signs, all types, including billboards. 
Why didn't you call in representatives of the strip miners? Why are 
they sitting in a position on beautification issues? Why don't we 
have a junk car dealer, or water polluter, or beer can maker, or lit- 
terbug sitting on the panel? 

Surely, they, too, have some ambiguous statements that they could 
have made to defend themselves. 

Mr. TOGKER. May I reply? 

Mr. IVES. No, you may not. We are not going to start a 
controversy. It has been a valuable adjunct to have Mr. Tocker here 
and he has made some real statements. 

FRANCIS S. LORENZ. It seems to me that we are all over the 
lot on this subject of natural beauty. What are we seeking 
to accomplish? Who are we blaming? Who is going to give up 
something in order that some other segment of our population gets 
something? Beauty, as the saying goes, is only skin deep. What 
might be beautiful in one man's eyes may be ugly in another's. A 
person in love looks through a pair of eyes that sees beauty in every- 

It seems to me that the natural beauty of our America can be 
enhanced. It can be done with a little give and take on the part 
of all segments of society. 

The emphasis of preserving natural beauty should be immedi- 
ately placed on educational programs to insure immediate results. 
Litter, trash, garbage, willful and malicious destruction and deface- 
ment of publicly owned and privately owned property are areas 
where natural beauty can be restored almost immediately. Let's 
all of us stop looking for scapegoats and roll up our sleeves and go 
to work. We are all responsible and we are all culpable. If we 
rebuild and preserve all the areas that have been mentioned in 
the hearings yesterday and this morning, it is going to cost huge 
sums of money, but it will be of no avail, unless you and I decide 


to maintain this beauty by acts of cleanliness and respect each other's 
property not just for today but for all of the tomorrows to come. 

We can stamp out ugliness, but please, let's not stamp out tax 
payers at the same time. Let's look in a mirror and the person that 
we see in the mirror is the person who should be doing his share 
of the job. 

I want to compliment the chairman on his intention to recom- 
mend stronger antilittering laws. 

Dr. DOROTHY A. MUNCY. I want to second a comment that was 
made by the gentleman from Santa Clara, Calif., and recommend 
that your Committee reconsider the emphasis that you are placing 
upon putting billboards into industrial road zones. 

In my work as a consulting city planner I assist communities in 
upgrading development standards for industrial zones. I recom- 
mend to city councils and to county boards that they prohibit bill- 
boards in any industrial zones which will have freeway frontage. 

To my private clients, those who are developing industrial parks, 
I make the same recommendation. Private industry has been seek- 
ing prestige sites fronting on major highways for more than a decade. 
Industrial management is spending extra millions for architecture 
and landscaping to build show-case plants on these prominent sites. 
Industry wants to present an attractive appearance and to be a good 
neighbor. This is an example where private investment can con- 
tribute to the appearance of the highway and to natural beauty in 
the community. But this private investment in handsome industrial 
buildings and in landscaping should be protected against billboards 
as neighbors. I hope you will reconsider the statements that appear 
to be accepted by all of you, and that your Committee will finally 
recommend that billboards be prohibited in industrial zones along 

Mr. IVES. I wasn't aware we had reached any conclusions. 
If we have, as to final recommendations on billboards, I am not 
aware of it. 

FRANCIS W. SARGENT. I am in charge of the highway program in 
our State. I am a queer sort of duck because since 1 947 I have been 
in the conservation business. As a matter of fact, I was Director of 
the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission and I think 
one of the most important things that has happened at this confer- 
ence has been that the conservationists, and the highway people, and 

779-59565 18 


the people related to highways and highway construction have gotten 
together. I disagree completely with the lady from Arizona who 
feels that the outdoor advertising people shouldn't be permitted to 
be here and participate. I think the very advantage of this meeting 
has been, and I think it was the plan of the President and the plan 
of Mr. Rockefeller, that there would be an opportunity for us all 
to look at this problem, together rather than to blindly oppose one 
another as we have over the years. 

I personally feel that this is important. I think the President has 
said we should, in this country, learn to reason together, and this, 
I think, is what we are doing. So that I frankly think that it is im- 
portant to have a representative of the Outdoor Advertising Asso- 
ciation here as a participant. As a conservationist and as a high- 
way commissioner, I feel that it is important that the highway people 
and the conservationists work together to solve this problem. This 
is the way we can move forward, and I think this is the intent of 
the conference. 

Senator NEUBERGER. I would like to comment on what Mr. Sar- 
gent has said. I agree that this meeting would be useless if we didn't 
have opposition if we were here just patting each other on the 

I have had a lot of experience I recently worked with the Sur- 
geon General on a study of the connection between cigarette smok- 
ing and disease. It would be an absolutely futile report if we had 
not had representatives from the tobacco industry. 

Along that line I was disappointed in one of our fellow panel mem- 
bers who represented the oil industry, which has a great deal of ad- 
vertising, who only posed questions but didn't give us any answers. 

I wish Mr. Shepard could be asked at this time to tell us how 
we are going to prevent the petroleum industry from raising bill- 

Mr. SHEPARD. Senator, I wish I knew. When one speaks of an 
industry in this country, this covers hundreds, or thousands, or tens 
of thousands of units. And to get a meeting of the minds of all of 
the elements in the industry in which I work is a very complicated 
and difficult task. 

So I don't know what we are going to do to get a unified attitude 
by every element in the oil industry in the United States. It is just 


too diverse and too complicated to expect a unified attitude on almost 
any subject.* 

IRSTON R. BARNES. I would like to make a recommendation 
that follows up and goes a little beyond Mr. Hornbeck's criterion. 

It seems to me we are faced with new dimensions of billboard 
blight. I am thinking particularly of billboards that are erected 
on high scaffolding above the treetops and of such size they are 
visible for a half a mile or a mile away. 

Mr. Ives, I know you are familiar with that Howard Johnson sign 
that you can see in Stratford, crossing the Housatonic. I went to 
Williamsburg this weekend and saw signs that were as wide as the 
stage at treetop level, well beyond the right-of-way. 

It seems to me that these are obvious attempts to appropriate values 
that have been created by public investment. They are a trespass on 
public property and I should like to recommend that Mr. Hornbeck's 
staff and Mr. Ramsey Clark's legal staff study this matter and dis- 
cover if it isn't possible to apply the laws of trespass to those bill- 
boards that are visible from the highway. I don't care whether 
they are 1,000 feet away or 5,000 feet away. If they are built on 
a scale where they intrude on the highway, they are an attempt to 
appropriate and to destroy values which the taxpayer has created. 

MARVIN BURNING. Contrary to Mr. Sargent whose remarks 
are in the tradition of good sportsmanship and contrary to the re- 
marks of Mr. Hornbeck who would have us back up in the State 
of Washington from the regulation of billboards in commercial and 
industrial zones for that would be the effect of his recommenda- 
tion and contrary to any disapproval of the lady from Phoenix, 
Ariz., I believe that you had a true statement of an honest indigna- 
tion from the ladies of America. For a long time we have heard 
the kind of smooth talk that says, "We want to get along with you, 
take our billboards, we are for children, we are for beautiful, Join 
Seattle Beautiful, the Chamber of Commerce will finance it. See 
the pretty America? Nothing will happen." That's what we have 
heard in the State of Washington for a long, long time and Mr. 
Tocker undoubtedly is sincere in his belief that the outdoor adver- 
tising companies will cooperate. But what he proposes, for example, 
would mean that in Washington two-thirds of the mileage of the 

*It was necessary because of other duties for Senator Neuberger to leave the 
meeting at this point. 


interstate system would permit billboards wherever existing boards 
are, wherever there is a sawmill, wherever the land is devoted to 
a commercial and industrial use. Most of our counties don't have 
zoning. The Outdoor Advertising Association poses nothing but 
the same old, "Let's not do anything now," and the gentleman from 
Illinois, "Keep Illinois Beautiful" "let's all talk together" just 
doesn't understand the indignation of Americans against being ex- 
ploited forever. 

BRYCE P. HOLCOMBE. I must say that this conference here today 
reminds me very much of the assemblies in the legislative halls 
beginning in 1956 and especially through 1958 when the govern- 
ment and the Congress attempted to do the job of regulating the 
advertising along the thoroughfares of this country. The same thing 
appeared and occurred before the U.S. Senate on numerous occa- 
sions, both in 1956 and 1958. It was apparently impossible to get 
aesthetic-minded people to ever agree on anything, and we here today 
have heard three definite positions discussed. 

Now, the sign and pictorial painters of this country have never 
opposed regulating advertising, but we were in 1958 compelled to 
oppose certain legislation. The outcome of that legislation was in 
large measure the influence of the 1 6 million people in the American 
labor movement. 

By all things that are holy, we are assembled here at the Chief 
Executive's call and the First Lady's call, and what do we do? We 
plan to take to him this afternoon a report from us who are high- 
minded and American-minded. If we take him an honest report, 
all that we will do is take him a shadow and a reflection of the public 
hearings held in the U.S. Senate in 1958. 

Here this morning we have heard these same opinions. I am 
very sorry the Senator had to leave. The Senator made reference, 
or indicated that there is a bill one which she spoke of very favor- 
ably that is going to help cure these things. Then the gentleman 
from the Commerce Department says we would advocate this, we 
would advocate that, and a thousand feet between. 

It is confusing. Do we have a legislative proposal or is the Depart- 
ment of Commerce going to make one? The opinions expressed 
here are exactly what we have had previously and I for one hope 
that this panel, this conference, will take to President Johnson the 


MICHAEL R. FAGAN. I, too, would like to express a concern we 
have heard from the other two planners. The County of San 
Bernardino, largest in the United States, was zoned industrially, the 
entire 20,000 square miles in 1951. We now have four interstate 
freeways, each one of which has approximately 250 to 300 miles of 
industrially zoned land. I think that a recommendation from this 
conference should be to support and encourage local cities and coun- 
ties to enforce the laws that they have enacted, particularly zoning 
laws. Without this support at the Federal level, the very fears that 
we have expressed variances and waivers of one kind or another 
will continue to occur. All plans proposed by this conference will be 
subverted because you will not have effectual support from your own 
local level. You cannot ignore local support and I strongly urge a 
recommendation from this conference to support local zoning control 
through enforcement. 

JACK B. ROBERTSON. In 1961, Washington State passed a com- 
prehensive law regulating billboards along the interstate highway 
throughout the full length without exception and on certain addi- 
tional scenic highways, chiefly in the mountain passes. That law is the 
best law in the continental United States; it is excelled only by the 
law in Hawaii. Because of this our State has been singled out for 
reprisals both in the courts and legislature by the outdoor advertising 
industry and others. 

I am shocked that any member of the panel would entertain rec- 
ommending to the President a law which is weaker than some of the 
State laws already on the books. 

Mr. IVES. Let me interrupt. How do you know what the 
panel is thinking of doing? This is twice that this has been discussed. 
I am sure that the panel doesn't even know themselves. So, I don't 
know how anybody can be shocked as to what the panel is thinking 
when the panel does not know what it is thinking itself. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. In 1964, the Federal Government passed the 
Transportation Act. Its purpose was to establish a transportation 

I recommend that this panel recommend to the President that 
billboard control be instituted as a matter of policy on all rapid 
transit lines otherwise we will have a continuation of the American 
highway disease along the rapid transit lines. 


I have another recommendation. Many tourists are coming to 
America now. Our President has undertaken a large program of 
inducing foreign tourists to come to this country. Many don't 
understand our signs. But in other countries in fact most they 
use international symbols and colors to designate items along the 
road of interest to the traveling public. 

Finally, I would like to see a show of hands of the people in the 
audience who believe there should be uniform roadside controls 
throughout the interstate highway. 

GLESTER HINDS. Litterers raise objection everywhere. Therefore, 
motorists that litter the interstate highways should be find $1,000 or 
made to do a cleanup job on the State highways to cover the amount. 

Statements Submitted for the Record 

DUDLEY G. BAYLISS. Admittedly, billboards in their present 
sizes are blotting out many stretches of otherwise pleasant roadside 
landscapes. And yet some of their messages are desirable to inform 
motorists of overnight accommodations and food and motor services. 

The means of satisfying this need for information was an important 
objective in the 1949-51 joint National Park Service Bureau of 
Public Roads Study of the Great River Road, extending some 3,500 
miles on both sides of the Mississippi River from Canada to the Gulf 
of Mexico. The 1951 joint report of the two agencies recommended 
a parkway type of development based on improving existing high- 
ways generally to parkway standards with protected scenic corridors, 
access control and complementary facilities such as campgrounds, 
historic sites, etc. 

The report describes and illustrates possible alternatives to bill- 
boards in the form of roadside information centers adjacent to, but 
screened from the highway with native plantings so that they are 
unobtrusive from the road. 

Within these centers would be located a series of well-designed 
message boards, small in size, to be read from parked cars. They 
would carry listings of campgrounds, motels, hotels, restaurants, 
garages and other tourist services or entertainments in nearby com- 
munities. Near larger cities they could include manned information 
stations, telephones, restrooms, etc. All of these would be maintained 
by the advertisers and chambers of commerce. Racks would pro- 
vide printed folders of various kinds. 


At the present time, the team of engineers and landscape archi- 
tects representing the Bureau of Public Roads and the National Park 
Service is including recommendations for these information stations 
for all 10 Mississippi Valley States in developing the Great River 
Road. We believe this form of visitor information could have gen- 
eral application on all Federal-aid highways and would provide a 
form of advertising more useful and more palatable than billboards. 

The 1951 report referred to above is now being reprinted. It is 
entitled "Parkway for the Mississippi." State or other public agen- 
cies interested in a full description will soon be able to obtain copies 
of the report by writing to : 

The Regional Engineer, Region 15 
Bureau of Public Roads 
North Glebe Road and Fairfax Drive 
Arlington, Va. 

DOROTHY W. ERSKINE. In the fight to preserve open space 
close to large cities, we desperately need some control or device 
stronger than local agricultural zoning to protect and preserve farm- 
land. We need a new kind of State or Federal open space preser- 
vation zoning to implement better land use policies on both State 
and Federal level. 

Why not authorize a study of the Greenbelt Act of 1947 of Eng- 
land (or Denmark or Holland)? Passed by an act of Parliament, 
this legislation has succeeded in England (where pressure of popu- 
lation on the land and city growth equals ours) in creating 10 na- 
tional parks, 3 wildlife sanctuaries and is in the process of surround- 
ing every large city with a permanent greenbelt of farmland. (Lon- 
don's greenbelt is 1 miles deep and exists now. Beyond the green- 
belt, new growth is expressed in 20 new towns. ) 

In any case with greenbelt zoning the owner still retains title to 
his land and pays local taxes but the farming use of the land cannot 
be changed. The farmer can still sell his land (to another farmer) 
for any profit he can make but he cannot sell it to build subdivisions 
or a factory. All building permits must be reviewed by the local 
planning body tc see that the permits conform to greenbelt use. 

When the Act was passed, money was appropriated to recompense 
any owner of farmland who, in court action, could prove he had 
suffered injury by the imposition of this greenbelt zoning. In Den- 
mark, 1,000 people appealed to the courts and compensation (like 
development rights) was paid. 


By this same Town and Country Planning Act in England and 
other northern European countries, all outdoor advertising on rural 
routes was banned. That is why motoring is so delightful in these 

The Hawaiian Land Zoning that has just become law is very close 
to greenbelt zoning in Europe. One State has done it. Other States 
now have a precedent. Perhaps the Federal Government can tie 
some of its grants to the provision that States protect farmland open 
space by a new and stronger zoning with assessments and tax laws 
to conform to it. 

MICHAEL R. FAGAN.* Under the title "Roadside Control" one 
could easily discuss litter or billboards. The latter consumed the 
greater amount of time on the panel discussion. The conference is 
to be commended and will enjoy my support for its firm position in 
this area. 

However, I should clearly like to establish my opposition to cor- 
ridor legislation. Many counties and States have adopted regula- 
tions which restrict property rights and freedom of land use develop- 
ment in different forms. The figure 500 feet in the case of San 
Bernardino County and 660 feet in the case of California have be- 
come standards with regard to the abolition and control of billboards. 

The Federal Government's position that billboards and junk- 
yards be similarly regulated to a point of 1,000 feet is only a further 
indication of a complete lack of understanding of the redundance 
and arbitrariness of our regulations. Further, it is this type of regu- 
lation which has caused me to seriously question the over-all effect 
of this corridor legislation. 

If it is the real purpose of natural beauty to be maintained and 
preserved, then we must recognize that the Lord did not arbitrarily 
terminate the beauty at 500 feet, 660 feet or 1,000 feet from the 
traveled way. The traveler will enjoy beauty because of its presence. 
The individual fulfillment will depend on his own tastes, but all of 
us will acknowledge that while laws are often based on one or more 
arbitrary conditions these indeed have created a dilemma. It has 
been suggested that in order to comply with the 660- and 1,000-foot 
setback, the average billboard character will have to be 8 feet in 
height, all of which will give birth to a sign which is not less than 
40 feet by 1 00 feet. The relationship of a series of advertising signs 
of this dimension to the roadside and to the limitation of natural 

*This is an extension of remarks made by Mr. Pagan during the panel dis- 


beauty are incompatible. In my opinion the only realistic alternative 
to corridor legislation is the use of land-use control through the real- 
istic adoption of use classifications. In this area the Federal Gov- 
ernment can provide immeasurable guidance, without losing local 
support which is so necessary for obtaining the final goals. 

The President has called for positive action to correct the situa- 
tion. He has not asked for an alternative which allows for the 
construction of bigger signs which set further from the highways 
which will only further block our view of natural beauty. 

CHARLES E. FRASER. The American recreational traveler suffers 
both from an excess of billboards advertising consumer products 
and an acute scarcity of useful and visible directional signs. He 
protests the billboards cluttering and spoiling the view. Yet, he 
becomes far more annoyed, when traveling a strange route, when he 
misses his turn off because the necessary direction sign is either too 
small and he fails to see it, or because his sought-for sign does not 

The swiftly traveling vacationer needs directional sign guidance 
in locating the facility he is seeking, whether it be a public or private 
recreational lake, public or private park or gardens, a restaurant, or 
a place of lodging. He gets such guidance effectively within the 
confines of our national parks and a few other large land tracts under 
unified control, but rarely elsewhere. 

The vital role of directional signs in making recreational auto 
travel a pleasant occasion, and the negative effect of helter-skelter 
billboards is revealed in the results of the latest questionnaires of the 
American Automobile Association, dealing with major annoyances 
on the highway. These questionnaires were sent to the representative 
members of the 5.6 million AAA members. 

Their most frequently mentioned complaints of major annoyances 
on the highway were as follows: 


1. Confusing or inadequate direction signs 62 

2. Unclean restrooms 49 

3. Traffic congestion in urban areas 33 

4. Large trucks and buses 31 

5. Billboards on scenic highways 30 

6. Very large house trailers 19 

7. Lack of service on freeways 15 

8. Other annoyances 15 


Even on a scenic highway, the pleasure traveler making his first 
trip definitely needs direction signs guiding him to the specific places 
of recreation, specific food and lodging, and specific historic sites 
planned as stopping points on his pleasure trip. 

Billboards are not subject to any government control in the vicinity 
of the new resort of Hilton Head Island, yet, by joint action of the 
food and lodging industry on the island, and the South Carolina State 
Highway Department, locally sponsored billboards are rare, prin- 
cipally because neat, attractive, and highly visible clusters of uniform 
directional arrows have been placed on upright standards at all 
strategic intersections. These groups of arrows provide the traveler 
with the specific information he needs. These specific locator arrows 
eliminate the greatest single annoyance on the highway in the opinion 
of 62 percent of those who replied to the AAA questionnaire; namely, 
the problem of confusing or inadequate directional signs. 

Since each local inn, motel, golf course, and like facility, through 
the cooperation of the South Carolina Highway Department and 
local interests, is assured space on sufficient sign standards for a uni- 
form arrow giving the facility's name, and mileage directions to the 
traveler, the local commercial or business pressure for billboards and 
signs even in commercial areas is sharply reduced. Their complete 
elimination even in commercial areas is probable. 

To make driving on scenic roads a pleasure, and to alert the 
motorist to location of the scenic roads, adequate provision should 
be made for the design of an approved uniform system of directional 
arrows to provide direction on scenic roads to the specific food, lodge, 
recreation, historical, and scenic spots serving, or sought by, the 
recreational traveler, identified by name, direction, and mileage. 

The total number of such directional signs on the road or at an 
intersection should be subject to initial approval and submission to 
State authorities by the local governing body in each county in which 
the scenic road is located. To reduce the number of requests from 
private business interests for such directional arrows, they should be 
limited to facilities serving the basic needs of the recreational traveler, 
and further, a uniform charge should be levied, to both defray the 
cost of constructing and erecting the arrows, together with a supple- 
mental license fee of $25 or $50 per directional arrow for the beauti- 
fication fund. 

Scenic highway regulations permitting and controlling such public 
and private informational signs, of uniform size and quality, could 


sharply reduce the pressure for erection of billboards by travel-serving 
business in the existing commercial and industrial areas. They 
should be made exempt from the billboard regulations presented to 
Congress by President Johnson. 

FRITHJOF M. LUNDE. It is generally accepted that there is a 
valid social basis for some forms of commercial roadside signs. The 
trouble with roadside signs is, among other things, a matter of in- 
discriminate location, bad architectural and graphic design, poor 
ideational content and bad upkeep. 

This proposal would at the outset seek completely to bar general 
product advertising as a legitimate need in outdoor advertising on 
local roads. A distinction must be made, however, to permit prod- 
uct-sales or product-service establishments' signs so that local sales 
and service agencies can advertise their agency for the general prod- 
uct, viz, a tire dealer, or tractor service agency. 

Permitted signs in the county or municipality adopting "Sign- 
Park Zoning" would have to demonstrate a pathfinding or directory 
aspect. A further distinction here would be that on-premises signs 
would be limited to product-sales or product-service or establishment- 
identifying signs but general advertising would be prohibited 

To deal with indiscriminate location of signs, it is proposed that 
sign-park zones be investigated as a concept. Under sign-park zon- 
ing, a general county or town directory in the form of multiple sign- 
boards concentrated in specially zoned areas would be mandatory 
after a terminal period for removal of existing signs elsewhere. The 
sign parks would be located within specified distances inward 
from the county or town line along the major thoroughfares and high- 
ways; commercial, off-premises signboards would be permitted no- 
where else. The sign-park locations would be recommended by the 
planning agency, adopted as part of the zoning ordinance ; approval 
of the planning board would be required and the zoning board of 
appeals or similar agencies would be the court-of-first-dispute. 

Sign parks could be substantial commercial enterprises and serve 
many useful purposes as a town or county directory, unmanned in 
most localities but permanently or seasonally manned as informa- 
tion centers, if required. They could be well designed by various of 
the design professionals, both as to their structures and graphics; 
they could list all the town's churches, service organizations, cultural 
entities, and commercial establishments, using existing and newly 


designed identifying graphics such as service club crests, calliphon 
logotypes and symbol graphics; public accommodations could list 
their types of rooms; vacancy signs could be illuminated by remote 
leased-wire lines; rates could be posted if desired and pathfinder 
symbols could be indicated. 

Elsewhere, pathfinder graphics could be permitted at or below the 
scale of highway traffic signs to direct travelers. 

It is further suggested that some interested national organization 
sponsor a national competition to investigate the sign-park concept. 
Teams composed of attorneys, planners, architects, landscape archi- 
tects, graphics artists or calligraphers, industrial designers, and others 
would compete to establish the legal description, land-planning as- 
pects, and a design demonstration of the idea. The winning team or 
teams would then be commissioned to work with a municipality or 
county willing to undertake the enactment of enabling legislation and 
with an entrepreneur willing to undertake the first pilot project, to 
bring a demonstration of the idea to fruition. 

The sponsoring organization could then evaluate the experience 
and disseminate the results to all interested parties. 

JACK B. ROBERTSON.* This Nation is in the process of developing 
a rapid transit policy. Many students of transportation expect some 
of the major urban centers will start and substantially finish a rapid 
transit system within the next decade. We should take a lesson from 
the past and protect the roadsides of all surface rapid transit systems 
from visual blight such as billboards, junkyards, dumps, and auto- 
mobile wrecking yards. Failure to do this will result in the same road- 
side blight we now find along our highways. 

A program of positive protection of the roadsides of surface rapid 
transit systems should be a condition for Federal aid to planning and 
construction of rapid transit systems. This will protect the invest- 
ment in the system, promote more pleasant travel, and prevent pas- 
sengers from becoming compulsory viewers of advertising signs. 

Many industrialized nations now convey information in the specific 
interest of the motoring public by official roadside signs using inter- 
national travel symbols. This system now has had enough use and 
refinement that it can now be beneficially instituted in the United 
States ; and this is recommended. 

*This is an extension of remarks made by Mr. Robertson during the panel 


Aside from the additional information that can be conveyed by 
such symbols, their use will help make highway travel more under- 
standable, safe, and enjoyable for our foreign visitors and tourists. 
Also, roadside businesses will benefit from these symbols thus remov- 
ing the desire for erection of roadside signs of their own. 

J. LEWIS SCOTT. Highway billboards constitute a menace to our 
life, liberty, happiness, and sight. They should be classed as sight 
blight or air pollution. 

A Federal standardization committee should be formed by law 
to limit and control all future sign sizes and locations. States could 
follow with similar laws. Committee members should be chosen 
from those in tune with architectural beauty in relation to natural 

After proper research on the architectural relationship of signs to 
natural beauty, the committee should prepare and issue guidebooks 
or standardization criteria for the placement and erection of all signs. 
Its coverage should include any commercial or industrial sign on 
land, sea, or in the air that is to be erected by Federal, State, or local 
governments or by private industry. 

Signs should be erected only on the advertiser's place of business 
and never on property leased for the sole purpose of advertising. 

The committee should work with State, county, and local planning 
commissions to establish review boards. 

W. R. SQUIRES, Jr. The Republic of Mexico has been operating 
for several years a border beautification program and such progress 
has been made in the appearance of their border areas, that the 
comparable locations in the United States are becoming quite shabby. 
I would suggest a U.S. border improvement program be considered 
by the President so that the entrances to our country will become 
and remain attractive and impressive. 

Mrs. FRANK E. WILLIAMS, Sr. As a delegate from West Virginia 
to this conference, I wish to offer the following suggestion: There 
are many neglected areas and dilapidated buildings in full sight along 
our main highways. For those now existing, there is no way to com- 
pel the owners to remedy these conditions. Persuasion is of no avail. 
For the prevention of the continuation of such conditions, a new 
approach to the problem seems to be necessary. 

The Federal Government has invested millions in building roads 
through the countryside, thereby increasing the value of the adjoin- 


ing lands. The increase has been reflected in the price the owners 
ask for the land when a sale of such is in order. Because of the 
Federal Government's investment, there has been created somewhat 
of an economic interest in the land. To protect this interest and to 
further the beautification program, legislation seems necessary. 

I recommend that steps be taken to enact a law by which a lien 
will be retained against any land 500 feet from the right-of-way of 
the highways. This lien will not be something new, as the Federal 
Government now uses such a procedure to secure the payment of 
income taxes due it. The local governing bodies use the same prin- 
ciple when they sell the entire property to secure the payment of local 
taxes. This would not be an unreasonable restriction of property 
rights as anyone who keeps his premises neat and clean would be in 
no danger from the lien. It is only those who are the despoilers of 
our natural beauty who would be penalized in this matter. 

I strongly recommend that this phase of the program receive care- 
ful consideration. 



10:30 a.m., Monday, May 24 

The Chairman, Dr. GRAHAM. We have agreed to consider the 
farm landscape to be the nonurban land of the United States. This 
is a large segment of the country, perhaps some 90 percent of it. At 
least by some figures, the urban and related intensive uses of land 
are less than 3 percent of the total. Therefore, efforts to preserve 
and improve natural beauty and create a more attractive America 
must rely heavily on what is done in rural areas. 

Most of the United States is privately owned. There are, of course, 
large acreages in public ownership of various types Federal, State, 
county but some three-fourths of our lands are in private hands. 

That point should be kept in mind and it brings us very close to 
some of the responsibilities that Mrs. Johnson spoke about this 

Much of the ugliness in the rural landscape is not caused by those 
who live there. Other panels in this conference will deal with some 
of the worst despoilers of rural America: great concrete slab dams 
and power houses, water towers, oil tank farms, highways, billboards, 
overhead wires, auto junkyards, strip mining and pollution of streams 
by municipal, mine, and industrial wastes. Yet those who own and 
operate the land can also despoil, as through erosion, indiscriminate 
cutting and burning of timber, over-intensive grazing, and use of 
the land beyond its capabilities. Farm buildings and implements 
are often left to deteriorate. 

On the other hand, when good husbandry is practiced, we usually 

Members of the Panel on The Farm Landscape were Karl Belser, 
Frank Fraser Darling, Dr. Edward H. Graham (chairman), Marion 
S. Monk, Jr., Andrew J. W. Scheffey, Paul B. Sears, Robert Wenkam, 
and Donald A. Williams. Staff Associate was Lloyd Partain. 



have a pleasing environment, rational land use and variety and 
beauty in the landscape. 

This brings us to one of the points that might be considered, 
namely, the programs of cost-sharing, loans, credit, etc., which will 
permit the private owner and operator to undertake good land and 
water use practices and which in themselves may add to the beauty 
of the countryside. 

We come also to the matters of control and the question of whether 
or not control is important or desirable in adding beauty to the 

May I give you just one personal example: Where I live, we 
have a pond which for the last two years has been very muddy because 
of siltation from a subdivision above the place, and I apparently 
have no recourse. Should there be some kind of contingency placed 
upon this, if public aids of one sort or another are made available, 
or should controls be handled in some specific way? 

It brings the whole question before us of better cooperation be- 
tween those who plan urban lands and those who plan the rural 
lands of America, which, in many ways, is an extremely important 
point with which we may deal this morning. Instead of rigid con- 
trols there might be incentives of various kinds made available to 
the landowner and operator and the communities in rural America. 
These can be in the form of easements, development rights, tax 
advantages, and so forth. 

Finally, our question involves the whole point of creating an 
appreciation for this human environment with which we are dealing 
in rural lands. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. If natural beauty in the vast expanse of rural 
America is going to be lasting and more than skin deep, its achieve- 
ment must begin with the care and management of soil, water, and 
plant resources the primary ingredients of natural beauty in the 

Natural beauty in the rural landscape is rarely an isolated product 
of a single special action. It is usually the result of man's activities 
as he manages farm, ranch, or forest land to make a living. Beauty, 
then, is often an important byproduct of measures that result simul- 
taneously in bounty as well as beauty. 

You all know what these measures are : 

The sweeping contours of stripcropped acres that tie down erod- 
ing hillsides. 


The grass and trees that blanket once-gullied fields or strip mined 


The lakes and ponds that dot the countryside. 

The multiple-use forest growth that replaces naked earth. 

As these and other measures improve his income, the landowner 
can afford farmstead improvements that result in further beautifica- 

This is not enough, I hasten to say, to meet all the objectives of 
the total program needed to enhance beauty throughout the land. 

We still need the public attitudes and actions, by rural people, 
that will reject dirty streams, careless fire in woodlands, littered 

We need to stimulate the desire for painted buildings, for grassed 
roadsides, for flowers, for proper junk and waste disposal on farms 
and in rural communities. 

We need, too, greater appreciation and understanding by the city 
dweller, as a citizen and as a periodic rural visitor, of his part in main- 
taining beauty in the countryside. 

Time will not permit exploring all the areas where the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture is redirecting and reinforcing its efforts in the 
field of natural beauty. Let me, however, mention just a few things 
we are doing and propose to do to see that beautification programs 
move forward actively in rural areas. 

The Secretary of Agriculture has assigned to one agency the 
specific responsibility for coordinating all the department's efforts 
toward natural beauty. He has issued a major policy statement that 
makes natural beauty a clear-cut objective in USDA's varied pro- 
grams of research and education, technical, credit and cost-sharing 

It may be of interest, also, to report that before the end of this 
year, the department will begin work to update the National In- 
ventory of Soil and Water Conservation Needs. This inventory, 
completed and published originally about five years ago, provided the 
first clear-cut picture of the total condition of our non-Federal land 

We found in this inventory, for example, that soil erosion was still 
a dominant problem on more than one-third of our cropland. 

We found that nearly two-thirds of the Nation's cropland and 
more than half of the private forest and woodland needed conserva- 
tion treatment. 

779-595 65 19 


We found that 25 million acres of land unsuited for cultivation 
were being cropped. 

We found that about two-thirds of the Nation's 12,700 small 
watersheds needed project action beyond the ordinary means of in- 
dividual landowners. 

Updating this kind of information, as we are now preparing to 
do, will provide valuable help in planning and carrying out programs 
that affect natural beauty. Similar surveys have been made, or are 
underway, on the matter of timber resources in our national forests, 
and on the water problems of our major river basins. They provide 
the physical facts that tell us quite a bit about the status of natural 
beauty. They tell us also what we must do to put our own land into 
the condition that will make and keep it beautiful as well as pro- 

There is yet another ingredient without which these rural beauti- 
fication goals cannot be achieved. That ingredient is people. 

Literally thousands of organizations and countless thousands of 
people in rural America are already at work to remove ugliness and 
to enhance beauty. To ignore that fact would be to do them a grave 
injustice, notwithstanding the large job ahead. 

There is, however, a great and growing need for closer working 
relationships between these rural groups and the people in the city 
and county governments who are engaged in the kind of regional 
planning that results in a better ordered and more beautiful land- 

Soil and water conservation districts and the small watershed 
projects, with which I am especially familiar, provide effective de- 
vices through which the several segments of a community can work 
together on common resource problems. We will help and en- 
courage their leadership to give greater emphasis to natural beauty 
in their programs and to participate actively in comprehensive plan- 
ning that will make rural-urban cooperation more effective. 

The new Resource Conservation and Development projects, made 
possible by provisions of the Food and Agriculture Act of 1962, and 
carried out under provisions of the Soil Conservation Act of 1935 
( Public Law 46 ) , will provide an especially effective means of team- 
work on a wide range of resource activities, including enhancement of 
natural beauty. These projects, because they embrace larger geo- 
graphic areas than the other conservation mechanisms I have men- 
tioned, necessarily involve a wider range of both rural and urban 


sponsorship and cooperation. We are now helping 1 pilot projects 
to get underway and expect that others will be authorized this year. 
The challenge and dimension of maintaining and improving nat- 
ural beauty in rural America is very great. I trust this conference 
will result in clarification of the needs and in a determination on 
the part of all of us to move more rapidly toward meeting them. 

Dr. SEARS. We underestimate the difficulty of our assignment, 
because it involves intangibles in two respects beauty itself being 
one of the intangibles. And when it comes to getting things done, it 
is not the techniques that are important, but the attitude of people, 
the values they cherish. It is very interesting in my travels and field- 
work to see, wherever the landscape is in order, it is simply because 
people want it that way and wouldn't have it otherwise. We are 
dealing, then, with a very difficult recommendation. 

As to the question of what is attractive, it is very hard to reach 
any conclusion, except this: I would suspect in most minds health 
is more attractive than a pathological condition. Ecologists can 
assay the relative health of a landscape, in terms of physical, chemi- 
cal, and the biological processes. These involve balance, variety and 

Now, where do we see this? In my judgment, I think that it is 
best exemplified not on a large mass production factory in the field, 
but rather where one has well-run, family-size farms. Taking into 
account the other social values, they also show this variety; they show 
this balance and the other attributes which seem to me to charac- 
terize the healthy landscape. 

Now, I question the extent to which this sort of thing is being 
encouraged. Twenty-five years ago I had a talk with a very trou- 
bled man who was in charge of the extension work in a great State. 
He said, "I am in a tough spot. All these years I have been work- 
ing to encourage the family farm. Now it seems the whole emphasis 
is changing and I am out to encourage these very large-scale, highly 
mechanized, and heavily capitalized operations." 

And history in the past 25 years has shown what choice he has 
had to make. 

I would like to suggest, at the very least, we would do a great deal 
to promote the attractiveness and the health of the rural landscape if 
we would not give undue advantages competitive advantages in 
the way of taxes and subsidies to these very large, highly mechanized 
mass production operations. 


We certainly don't need them, because they are a source of surplus 
at this time and complicate the problem of the small operation. 

To my mind, in any kind of a program to improve the appearance 
of the landscape, both rural and urban, land use plans are basic. I 
hope we will reach the condition in the States where no suburb or 
development will take place without reference to a sound land use 

I think most of you recall that shortly after World War I, Sir Dud- 
ley Stamp organized a land use survey of England, using secondary 
school students. I have been assured that the plan which was de- 
veloped was a very important factor in feeding Great Britain when 
she was under blockade in the Second World War. 

I think it is the height of folly to go ahead with developments, both 
rural and urban, while ignoring land use capability. 

Another thing I would like to mention very briefly is the impor- 
tance of local leadership and coordination of effort between rural 
and urban sources. There has been some apprehension because of 
reapportionment. We can take a bit of comfort there, I think, be- 
cause, in my experience in the last 25 years, some of the most effec- 
tive concern for the landscape, both rural and urban, has come 
from city people. So I don't think that aspect of the situation is 

Dr. DARLING. The agriculture of the past was diverse on the in- 
dividual farms, because it had to supply the needs of food, plenishing 
and clothing a local population. This diversity was ecologically 
sound, though the process of reaching it was not thought out to that 

Diversity makes pattern and variety of color at any moment of the 
year, which will live. Plants find tolerance in agriculturally diversi- 
fied landscape and plagues and pests are much less likely to occur 

I want to make four points in this presentation. This old-style 
diversity of landscape is disappearing as new lands develop which 
will do any one part of that agriculture better than an area which is 
not naturally fitted to it. Highways and fast trucking have been 
powerful factors in cutting down diversity and you can grow any 
single crop cheaper than you can produce it in small diverse farms. 
This trend isn't likely to be diverted, and the most hopeful action 
in monocultural districts would seem to be with the individual com- 


panies who run these operations to see if they will attempt to provide 
a small amount of diversity on these large landscapes. 

I would say second, that agricultural architecture is growing less 
pleasing and it is becoming more the processing plant of the large 
monocultural operation. Isolation of such plants in the countryside 
is not good enough reason for their being allowed to be bad archi- 
tecture. Many industrial buildings have great beauty and agri- 
cultural ones should try to reach a pleasing standard. 

I think architecture should be one of the first things taught to a 
child, not by telling him but by giving him architecturally sound 
bricks instead of just square blocks and letting him play with those. 

Third, I feel that the policy of taxing land can be rather upside 
down. If you tax lands when development takes place, then you 
retard development insofar as somebody wishes to keep a farm as 
a farm. If you tax on potential, as is now general in the United 
States (but not over-all there are counties that have changed in 
this respect,) it means that the farm between two subdivisions is 
squeezed out. It has to develop. 

I feel that the tax on development, after development has taken 
place, would be a sounder process. I also, fourthly, would like to 
bring up the matter of zoning of private lands adjacent to large pub- 
lic land areas such as national parks and national forests. These 
lands rise in price as soon as these public areas are proclaimed and 
a very poor style of development can and does take place on the very 
periphery of large and beautiful wild lands. 

I feel that zoning of a buffer area around these natural wild lands 
would help not only to beautify them, but would maintain the areas 
in the condition for which they were chosen. 

I think at the moment that some of these things are politically im- 
possible, but they should not be politically impractical within a fairly 
near future. 

Mr. WENKAM. I am very pleased that Mr. Rockefeller empha- 
sized in his opening remarks that we need not carry on philosophical 
speculation; that we are here not to just talk about natural beauty, 
but to offer concrete suggestions on how to keep what little we 
have left. 

Even Hawaii, famed for its beauty, has not been spared the devel- 
oper's axe of progress. It may seem unbelievable, considering the 
fact that Diamond Head is the prime symbol and scenic asset of 
Hawaii's $320 million tourist industry, but there is under construe- 


tion a concrete wall around this world-famed landmark. The wall 
of apartment hotels has progressed to the point where today Dia- 
mond Head cannot be seen at all from the main boulevard of Waikiki, 
and only occasionally, with effort, from Waikiki Beach. 

You may wonder why the advertisements for Hawaii never reveal 
these buildings obstructing the view of Diamond Head. Well, I'm 
the photographer who has taken all the Hawaiian travel promotion 
pictures in the past few years, and I have specific instructions from 
the advertising agency not to show any buildings on Diamond Head. 
This is becoming increasingly difficult to do. I hope this conference 
will help make my job easier and more honest. 

Our problem is not just how to keep farms a beautiful part of our 
landscape; it may really be one of just how to keep our farms at all. 
The traditional farmland we remember as youngsters, the brightly 
painted silo, chickens running down the road, and checkerboard 
landscapes textured with crops rotated on small acreages, is slowly 
disappearing from the American scene. It is becoming economically 
impossible to earn a living on a family farm. It may be that if it 
were not for government price-support programs, what we speak 
of might not even exist except in isolated areas, in picture books, and 
on long Sunday drives. 

Giant mechanized combines have turned agriculture into a manu- 
facturing enterprise with much of its ugly manifestations. The small 
farm home and the family have been efficiently replaced in many 
areas by the migratory worker and the bracero. 

Where the family farmer is holding his own in diversified agricul- 
ture, the flaying octopus of urban encroachment and a constantly 
expanding suburbia offer him a price for his land impossible to re- 
fuse. If he does resist, the tax assessor grabs him on the next time 

Haphazard urban scatterization and accompanying freeways are 
destroying the beauty of agricultural production where it is most 
needed on the fringe of our densely populated cities and towns, 
bursting at the seams with a population explosion. 

The conservationist who opposes the subdivider and freeway build- 
ing finds himself being accused by the politicians of stopping progress, 
of hindering economic development, and worst of all, denying prop- 
erty owners their constitutional rights. 

Here a quiet revolution is taking place in America, a revolution 
against the traditional sanctity of private property, a revolution by 


the middle class and intellectuals who are landowners themselves, 
and in times past the first to defend the privileges of the landlord. 
The revolt is fed by the excesses of shortsighted developers as they 
move across the farmscape, and nourished by an American public 
yearning for the open space that is increasingly seen only in Sierra 
Club coffee-table gift books. 

The political implications of a democratic republic, whose people 
live by law and guarantee their freedoms through the courts, is mani- 
fested most dramatically when the people rebel at desecration of 
natural beauty they assumed to be public property. They are learn- 
ing that property owners are resisting this assumption. Citizen 
groups who stand up to object are ruled out of order by planning 
commissions and struck down by the courts. 

It is increasingly evident that if we are to permanently protect 
America's "farmscape" from unrestricted urban eroding of the 
countryside, we must take a new look at our traditional property 
rights in order to retain our individual freedoms in a growing Nation. 

President Johnson expressed the need for action in the planning 
arena quite well in his state of the Union message : 

We do not intend to live in the midst of abundance, isolated from 
neighbors and nature, confined by blighted cities and bleak suburbs. 
For over three centuries the beauty of America has sustained our spirit 
and enlarged our vision. We must act now to protect this heritage. 

The now well-established concept of city zoning ordinances, tested 
and found constitutional in our courts, must be expanded to include 
the countryside and farmlands. 

Hawaii's unique land use legislation providing for zoning of all the 
the land in the State, public and private, urban and farm, may well 
set an example for the Nation to follow or adopt. The findings and 
declaration of purpose as written in Hawaii's land use law, are very 
appropriately applied, not only to protect agricultural enterprise, but 
to effectively protect natural scenic resources as well. 

All the land in the State is zoned within four land use districts 
urban, rural, agricultural, and conservation. 

The urban limits of each city and town is determined by the Land 
Use Commission, the county zoning ordinances of the affected com- 
munity prevailing within the urban district. 

Mixed farm and low density residential areas are placed in the 
rural district. 


All agricultural activities, diversified farming, and ranching are 
in the agricultural district. 

Conservation districts "include areas necessary for protecting 
watersheds and water sources; preserving scenic areas; providing 
park lands, wilderness and beach reserves . . . and other related 

It is noteworthy that the Land Use Commission's own regulations 
drawn up as criteria to determine permissible uses within agricultural 
districts, specifically provide for retention or rehabilitation of "sites 
of historic or scenic interest." 

While the clear intent of the law is primarily to preserve agricul- 
tural lands from urban encroachment for economic reasons, the nat- 
ural beauty of the farmscape is protected in a very practical man- 
ner. It is a simple step to further prescribe that preservation of our 
farmlands is also necessary to protect the natural growth of the 

It is time we recognize that natural beauty is public property and 
ban trespassing by vandals. Let us recognize the public rights to 
open space and natural beauty on the same legal level as private 
rights to private property. 

Let us declare America's natural beauty the land, the sea, and 
the sky the property of all. 

As we recognize the legal consequences of zoning to preserve nat- 
ural beauty, we are going to be involved in considerable legislation 
and testing in the courts, but I think we must learn to realize that 
we must hold the land in safekeeping, whether we hold title or not. 
And the prospect of zoning by the States, through cooperation with 
the counties, may well be a way to protect our natural beauty and 
still protect our freedoms. 

Mr. BELSER. I think we all have a pretty good idea of the objec- 
tive. Our real concern relates to what we can do in the way of 
action on this problem. As a representative of local government on 
this panel, I would like to emphasize the role of local government, 
the action role which local government can assume. 

I was interested to learn this morning that there are something 
over 3,000 counties and local governments local rural govern- 
ments in the United States, and of this number less than 10 percent 
have any program for conservation or park and recreation develop- 
ment. This makes the remarks that I am going to make very per- 


tinent, it seems to me, because if this is true, then there should be 
more action at the local governmental level. 

What can local government actually do along this line? I think 
what we are asking for is a declaration on the part of local govern- 
ment that one of the objectives of local administration shall be to 
have natural beauty prevail. It seems to me this brings you right 
up against your own place of domicile. You may ask: How does 
our county corporation yard look? What does our county quarry 
look like? How is our county sewage plant built? How is our 
county waterworks built? Is it a thing of beauty or is it a disgrace? 

It seems to me that only by a county taking the initiative of seeing 
to it that its own house is in order can it inspire anybody else to do 
anything about it. 

Next, I think the county should provide a general plan and a part 
of that general plan should have a beauty aspect. It should be con- 
cerned with parks, open spaces, conservation, and that sort of thing. 

Now, these suggestions I am making are provided for in most 
State enabling legislation, so that there is no real excuse for negli- 
gence in these regards. 

If a plan is provided, it shouldn't be one that will be rolled up and 
placed on a shelf somewhere. It should be supported by a fiscal pro- 
gram for implementation. It should also be supported by a pro- 
gram of public education which indicates to the public at large that 
this is a program worthy to be supported by votes for bond issues. 

Local government should also develop an organization within its 
structure for the administration of these kinds of facilities. And if 
this kind of plan is properly drawn, it will penetrate all segments of 
the county, or the local jurisdiction, and will also provide inspiration 
to others to do likewise, to improve their property. It is interesting 
to note that the public sector of the sphere, particularly in metro- 
politan areas, is an increasing one, and the amount of influence 
which it can bring to bear is tremendous. 

Furthermore, each local government unit should have a public 
education policy, and it should overtly help and encourage citizen 
action along this line. 

It should also consider that all of its public works, regardless of 
what they are, have a potential for multipurpose demonstration 
along the line of open space and resource conservation, and that this 
holds for flood control, freeways, and all kinds of action which local 
governments take constantly to improve the services of the com- 


These can all be integrated into a beautification program which 
can make the community much more beneficial. 

Dr. SCHEFFEY. I am going to approach the topic of this panel 
somewhat indirectly by looking at the land-grant State university 
system that exists in this country as an institutional force potentially 
qualified (and I would underscore this term "potentially") to deal 
with many future problems of landscape quality on a continuing 

This unique combination of research, teaching, and extension 
education, as we all know, has had a central thrust upon the entire 
agricultural enterprise in this country and has had a profound influ- 
ence upon many aspects of resource development. Much of this 
past effort, however, has been directed toward counteracting the ill 
effects of unsound land use practices and resource development 

Current knowledge enables us now to foresee future changes with 
greater clarity, to anticipate what future needs are going to be, and 
to avoid many costly mistakes in the use of land. Mr. Rockefeller 
pointed out this morning that, over the next 40 years, we are going 
to practically rebuild large portions of this country. Here is an 
opportunity to avoid mistakes. 

By focusing on landscape quality and design, a charge which 
would be wholly consistent with the historical mandate of the State 
university systems, these institutions could become powerful agents 
for generating workable concepts and practices of what I would refer 
to as environmental stewardship, and I would think this is really 
what this portion of the conference is about. 

The challenges of the new conservation now demand such a 
broadening of traditional areas of concern in each of the States. 
This university system constitutes a potentially vital focal point for 
gathering new knowledge about landscape problems, for producing 
a professional corps capable of utilizing this knowledge, and for creat- 
ing the organizational innovations necessary for applying it to the 
land. I think this is what we have been hearing about during the 
last two presentations. This system could become a viable frame- 
work for implementing many of the proposals stemming from this 
conference, transmitting them into action programs at State and 
local levels. 

These institutions could provide the institutional support neces- 
sary for formulating forward-looking landscape policies embracing 


agriculture and other forms of resource use and involving citizens 
and business interests as well as the governmental agencies. 

Basic adjustments, however, are going to be needed if these in- 
stitutions are to respond fully to this challenge. The transition will 
not be automatic or easy. It is going to require more than the addi- 
tion of some new programs and the retraining of existing personnel. 
Within many disciplines there will have to be a redirection of 
academic and research emphasis, one that recognizes beauty and 
natural amenities as integral and legitimate products of the land, 
equal in importance to the more traditional resource commodities 
and services. Areas of responsibility must be extended to include 
urban and community interests in the land. 

In the final analysis, it seems that the citizen, as well as the land- 
owner and the landscape shapers (both the public and the private 
ones ) must begin to participate more actively in determining stand- 
ards of quality and beauty in communities and on landscapes 
throughout the Nation. As Professor Sears pointed out, this is 
basically a question of attitudes and values. The basic need is to in- 
crease the citizen's sense of environmental awareness, to promote 
keener sensitivity to the changes that are taking place and fuller 
understanding of the possibilities for alternative forms of develop- 

All of this is going to demand a sustained educational effort. It 
is a task which the State university systems adapted to local political 
and ecological conditions and with a tradition of service to the larger 
statewide community, are particularly qualified to accept. 

They can provide continuity and integration for other public pro- 
grams and they can participate in the training of future landscape 

Therefore, in conclusion, I would suggest that we look to the 
State universities to assume much of the leadership in providing 
followup action to many of the proposals stemming from this con- 
ference. These institutions might well be encouraged to sponsor 
similar statewide natural beauty gatherings, applying the findings of 
this conference to localized situations. And finally, we might con- 
sider the establishment in several parts of the country, in connection 
with several major institutions, of a series of pilot demonstration 
programs in landscape planning on a regional basis, designed to 
undertake research, to promote more imaginative approaches to 
public education and community involvement in these problems, 


and to work toward the formulation of workable landscape policies. 
What I am suggesting, in short, is that we think about the develop- 
ment of a universitywide system of extension education, focused on 
problems of landscape quality and design. 

Mr. MONK. The restoration, the enhancement, and the mainte- 
nance of natural beauty as an integral element or characteristic of the 
rural landscape are desirable goals, capable of accomplishment. In 
this presentation, the farmstead will be regarded as part of the land- 

There are a number of prevailing reasons why significantly large 
tracts of the rural landscape are either deteriorating in appearance 
or are failing to make a reasonable contribution to a countryside 
that ought to be notable for its natural beauty. It is useful to iden- 
tify some of the chief causes of ugliness, monotony, and drabness as 
a prerequisite to recommending solutions. 

Beauty rarely exists in the midst of poverty. For the millions of 
rural people trying to get along with marginal income or less, mat- 
ters of beauty do not get a high priority. First claims on the funds 
and attention of low-income families are the size of the next crop, 
payment of taxes, payment on the interest and principal of loans, 
clothing and education for the children, bread to eat, and a roof 
overhead. Low farm income is probably the number one enemy of 
natural beauty in rural America. 

Investments in beauty are investments in the future. There is 
little incentive for farm families to invest in the appearance of farm- 
steads or farms when foreclosures or sale are just around the corner. 
Thousands of farm families are leaving the farm each year, and this 
instability operates against attention to beauty in the countryside. 

Even where there is stability and a reasonable income, attention 
to the appearance of the farmstead and the landscape has suffered 
from apathy or misguided notions that investments in appearance 
are either superficial, vain, or improvident. In too many commu- 
nities, a pleasing environment has not been given the status of an 
acceptable community or individual objective. In these circum- 
stances, there is neither organization nor attitude to identify aspects 
of beauty and foster them. 

There is an increasing area of abandoned and little-used land in 
rural America, as agricultural production efficiency operates to con- 
strict the acreage devoted to crops and livestock, and as small farms 
are sold or retired from production. Increasing thousands of acres 


are growing up in weeds, brush, untended grass, and scrub trees. 
More often than not, these lands become an eyesore. 

In addition to untended idle land there is eroded land land torn 
with gullies by excessive or misguided use, stripped of its productive 
topsoil, and laid bare by wind and water. Whether as forlorn rem- 
nants of former mistakes, or the angry evidence of damage now 
progressively underway, these marks of waste are, to say the very 
least, unsatisfying. 

Neither beauty nor attention to it are automatic. Heretofore 
there has been little realistic incentive to bring action in this direction. 
As a government or community purpose, it has not often ranked high 
as a claimant for time, money, informational help, or technical 

If these are, indeed, some of the key reasons for cancer spots of 
ugliness, drabness, and inattention to beauty in the rural landscape, 
then some of the avenues to improvement become evident. 

We need to continue our exploration in the United States for 
ways to improve the income of disadvantaged rural landowners and 

We need to continue our concern for farm family stability. 

We need a program purposefully focused on the use of land within 
its basic capabilities and the treatment of land according to its needs 
for protection and waste. Eligible use, in this program, should not 
be confined to commodity production. 

We need a program of technical assistance, cost-sharing, and per- 
haps loans to help convert abandoned, idle, or little-used farmland 
from the ugliness of weed and brush infestation to some constructive 
uses whether these be for wildlife, nature trails, water development, 
or purely aesthetic enjoyment. 

We need to step up conservation and resource development work 
on the operating farms and ranches of the country not only to heal 
the scars of past carelessness and exploitation, such as gullies, muddy 
streams, and eroded fields, but to create the fact as well as the appear- 
ance of orderly cooperation by men with nature. 

We need to establish the restoration and enhancement of natural 
beauty as an acceptable, important goal of the people of the country. 

Government agency personnel working in the countryside must 
be authorized and directed to assist, through their regular program 
functions, toward attainment of the goal. 


Progress will require the continuing support and participation 
of a variety of local organizations. Important among these are the 
3,000 soil and water conservation districts organized under State 
laws in the 50 States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. They 
are operated by local people and concern themselves with the con- 
servation, development, and management of land, water, and related 
natural resources. These local subdivisions of State government 
cover more than 95 percent of all the privately owned lands of the 
Nation. It is through them that the Department of Agriculture 
provides technical and other assistance to more than two million land- 
owners and operators and to thousands of communities. 

Consideration should be given to a program designed to improve 
the appearance of farmlands and farmsteads as well as the rights- 
of-way adjoining the Nation's main-travelled highways. Cost- 
sharing and technical assistance would be important for progress on 
these properties. 

Consideration should also be given to the development of poten- 
tially pleasing vistas of unique or particularly pleasing natural beauty, 
extending well beyond the highway rights-of-way and the immedi- 
ately adjoining farmlands. Attention to these vistas, especially roll- 
ing lands that have gone out of production or are scheduled for re- 
tirement from cultivation, could be most rewarding. 

Most important, probably, is recognition that land and water are 
basic elements in the restoration and enhancement of natural beauty 
in the countryside. They are the source of the wealth that makes 
improvement of the farmstead possible. And they are, in themselves, 
the very substance of the rural landscape demanding attention. 

Questions and Discussion 

STEPHEN COLBY. I would like to make a statement in regard to 
the Resource Conservation and Development Programs of the Soil 
Conservation Service, in particular, and to all governmental pro- 
grams in general. I am on the Southern Illinois University Advisory 
Committee to the Shawnee District R.C. & D. program of the S.C.S. 
I find the Shawnee District, as organized by the S.C.S., divides the 
Greater Egypt Regional Planning Commission area in half which 
creates potential problems by causing cross-currents that could im- 
pair the effect of both programs. 


All governmental programs should recognize the basic units with 
which they have to deal, not only in terms of the basic natural re- 
sources, but the human resources and governmental resources as well. 

Today's technology alleviates the necessity for contemplating nat- 
ural resource base as the principle consideration when undertaking 
programs of economic rehabilitation. If a group of people consider 
themselves to be an economic-political unity, this must be the prime 
consideration of future development, either as a part of a larger unit, 
or as an autonomous unit, but never divided. 

HAROLD GILLIAM. I would like to suggest, for the consideration of 
the panel, some possible recommendations for Federal policy to en- 
courage the maintenance of farmland as open space. One would 
be the possibility of income tax concessions to farmers, or advantages 
to farmers and owners of open space, who maintain their land as 
open space. 

Another would be the possibility of Federal grants to local govern- 
ments as compensation for revenue lost when they assess land for 
rural rather than urban purposes. If farmland in a suburban area 
is assessed for its actual use rather than its potential use, as one of 
the speakers mentioned, the local governments will lose revenue. 

Maybe there could be a Federal program of grants to local govern- 
ments to make up that lost money. 

Another one would be the possibility that open space grants could 
be made to local governments which have a policy of zoning rural 
land, as Mr. Wenkam stated is done in Hawaii. These could be 
made either under existing programs, such as the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund or the HHFA programs, or under some new type 
of program. 

Here are some procedures with which the Federal government 
might encourage local governments to maintain farmland as open 

Dr. CLARENCE COTTAM. It seems to me that there are two things 
that are left out of the program, as I heard it from the distinguished 
panelists. When the big problem is to make money out of the land 
that is incapable of agriculture, more effort should be made to elim- 
inate the poor land that Mr. Williams is talking about. We have a 
lot of it. There need to be capability tests made of it. There needs 
to be elimination of agriculturally unproductive land so the land 
can be put into other and better uses. 


We need to put some sort of a muzzle on one or two government 
agencies that try to rule independently. When you have a beautiful 
bluebonnet patch, we shouldn't let some individual come along with 
pesticides or herbicides or with a mower and put through a cutting 
at the height of the growing season. 

There are a few things of that sort in which there ought to be a 
greater degree of coordination between Federal and State programs. 
We need to increase our educational program. 

DANA L. ABELL. I am a newcomer to the Appalachian region, 
having now a glorious time exploring the Blue Ridge parks and park- 
ways. And I am most impressed not by the Ridge itself, but by the 
surrounding lands and the beautiful rural area there. 

It has occurred to me that some of these areas are not long for 
this world as far as beauty is concerned. And the idea came to me 
that we should be thinking in terms of natural rural scenic preserva- 
tion districts that might subsidize lands which are incapable of main- 
taining agricultural production, but are important remnants of a 
historical past and need preservation. These would be areas estab- 
lished around the regions that we are preserving in their natural 
state. They would be rural lands of great beauty, which are as im- 
portant to our scenic heritage as the national parks. 

DAVID K. HARTLEY. I would like to make the point that the 
only agency capable of really looking at all land in a State would 
appear to be a State agency either a State planning agency or some 
other kind of agency, that is concerned with land use planning. 

The point was made that statewide land use planning is necessary. 
There is never going to be a large-scale conservation program with- 
out the support from the central city people. And if conservation 
is to be a legitimate land use that can hold its own, it must be bal- 
anced off against other land uses. Therefore, it would seem to me 
that this conference could well go on record as encouraging sound 
land use planning in every State. This is the biggest lack now in this 
country's planning structure. 

F. J. MACDONALD. Is there any way for this conference to go 
on record encouraging the Federal Government to get some sort of a 
mandate to the universities and to the soil and water people to start 
a series of clinics? These could be advertised heavily and well at- 
tended to help people in the areas that we are speaking of. 


We are interested in the educational end of this thing, and we 
would like to get people started in this direction. We know the 
universities could hold these clinics if the Federal Government would 
encourage them and might even send down a mandate to this effect. 

The soil and water people are already working in this area. 
Could we get them to hold clinics and invite men who are interested? 

Dr. BOOKER WHAJLEY. I would like to direct my question to 
Professor Scheffey. When you spoke of training landscape man- 
agers, what level of training did you have in mind, degree-type train- 
ing or not? 

Dr. SCHEFFEY. I didn't specify whether this is professional train- 
ing or post-professional training. I think both are needed. 

I think, as we move more and more into this area of over-all land- 
scape manipulation, we have to get closer cooperation on the part of 
a number of disciplines and departments. 

I think that this has to be encouraged at the university and gradu- 
ate level. At the same time there is a need to follow up on the sug- 
gestion that was just made for some sort of clinic or short course or 
whatever, for what I would refer to as the landscape shapers. These 
could be road agencies, public works people, or it could be private 
developers, in order to give them some understanding and involve- 
ment in the sorts of things that are being talked about here, specifi- 
cally, the role of aesthetics and other forms of developments. 

I would think this should take place both at the professional aca- 
demic level, and also in the area of short courses and clinics. That 
is a good suggestion that I hadn't thought about. 

Dr. JOSEPH SHOMON. One of the things I would like to offer as 
a comment and as a concrete proposal to this group is that we con- 
sider islands of green around all of our major 2,000 cities around the 
United States and that we convert these islands of green to educa- 
tional, scientific and aesthetic and cultural purposes by making them 
into the community nature education centers that we so badly need 
around America. 

All of you here probably know that a new film has just been re- 
leased by the U.S. Forest Service in cooperation with the Audubon 
Society. It is entitled "Islands of Green." If you want to know 
how to have one of these centers in your community, be sure to get 
a copy of this film. It has the highest level of government and pri- 
vate sector conservation endorsement in this country. 

779-59565 20 


KENNETH MORGAN. I have very much enjoyed the reports 
that have been made by this panel and I don't know that I can add 
much to them. I think the problems mentioned by Professor 
Scheffey, and Mr. Monk of Louisiana, have been encountered in 
South Dakota. We are talking about a big country. We can talk 
about a big program. I can see now that there are some things that 
were mentioned here that will work in South Dakota, and I 
think your suggestions, Prof. Scheffey, that we proceed through the 
universities and mechanical arts colleges, would be of great help, 
because we already have these established in our State. We also 
have established something which we haven't yet touched upon, but 
I am sure we are all familiar with, and that is the forest range pro- 
gram. We are an agricultural State. The river forms a natural 
barrier extending north and south. The West River country is 
cattle, while the East River is mainly large ranch country and smaller 
farm units. In the West River primarily, I think, the beautification 
program can be carried on to a great extent through the Interior 
Department and through the forestry range program which has to do 
with our cattle. 

DAVID BROWER. I wonder if your panel, Mr. Chairman, 
might recommend something like these four points in your final 
recommendations to the President. 

1. That means be found to seek standing in the courts for rural 
beauty, something that would limit the corporate right to seize and 
confiscate beautiful landscape. 

2. That means be found to establish national and State reserva- 
tions of Class 1 lands, perhaps financed out of taxes on overcrowded 
development, on capital gains, on landowners a tax on ugliness. 

3. That commissions be established that would devote themselves to 
the restoration of diversity in the countryside. These commissions 
would seek to carry on advanced studies of the importance of 
such diversity. 

4. That means be found by every commission to guard against the 
ominous forecasts that we are confronted with, predictions, for 
example, which, if they are repeated over and over again, bring 
about their own fulfillment, like the regretful or boastful prediction 
that the population will double in 40 years. 

LEONARD HALL. Mr. Williams, I go back to the early days 
of the Federal Soil Conservation Agency. Your agency was the one 


that originated the idea of land capability, of analyzing it and using 
it according to its capabilities. 

I write for an audience of about 350,000 people a week. The 
greatest point of ignorance that comes through to me from these 
people is their ignorance of land capability. They say, "Here is all 
this land. Use it." And they believe you can use it any way you 
want to. We know that is not true. That is part of the educational 
job in this whole picture. Mr. Sears talked about the steady tend- 
ency toward bigger land units. I believe we have got to get back 
to an ethical and moral attitude toward land use and say "this is where 
we have to go, not because science and technology and government 
subsidies say we are going there, but because it is right." There is a 
lot of big machinery used in agriculture today because it is subsidized 
and not because it is efficient on the land. We have to say this is 
where American agriculture should go in order to build a better 
America, and then we will be able to plan for the right kind of family 
farms and keep them. And we were talking about soil districts. I 
drive 40,000 miles a year through them and sometimes I will drive 
all day with the stink of the defoliant in my nostrils or along drain- 
age ditches, where dead fish float on the surface killed by herbicides 
and insecticides. 

These are tremendous problems in natural beauty. I would like 
to make a tiny comment on Dr. Darling's statement. It seems to 
me that the education of our children in good taste, and this is the 
thing you were talking about, is tremendously important. You 
cannot do away with the slum landscape when you have slum- 
minded people. Maybe the ones that are here now are too old to 
change, but we certainly have to change their children. 

Dr. E. W. MUELLER. I appreciate the comments that have been 
made here calling for new approaches which will achieve some of the 
goals that we have for beauty in rural America. 

But I suggest that we also take a good, hard look at the structure 
that we now already have. Where we are not doing a good job, 
let's strengthen those structures. 

For example, the soil conservation districts reach the private land- 
owner, and reaching the private land-owner, they can do a lot to help 
beautify private land but the landowner needs technical advice to be 
able to do a wise job and a good job in planning his land use. There- 
fore, any effort to charge a user fee for these technical services that 
are made available at present without cost would be a step in a back- 


ward direction. I would like to suggest to the panel that they make 
a strong recommendation that any user fee charged for technical serv- 
ices made available to private landowners be seriously questioned. 
We should make this technical service available to farmers without 

PHILLIP ALAMPI. We have in New Jersey the highest land tax 
in the Nation. In order to assess farmland on an agricultural use 
basis rather than on the basis of nearby industrial land values, we 
had to seek a public referendum to revise constitutional provisions 
relating to property assessment. This we did in the Garden State 
with a program identified not only as a project to preserve agricul- 
ture but also to "Save Open Spaces". The referendum was ap- 
proved by a majority of 3 to 1, and now qualified farmers who have 
5 acres or more are taxed on the capacity of that land to produce 
agricultural crops and not on the basis of adjacent industrialized 
or residential land areas. 

In considering the difficulty of preserving agriculture in highly 
urbanized New Jersey, I think this is a lesson for other States con- 
cerned with the loss of farmland. It also presents an opportunity 
to the fellow who would like to invest in farmland and make a profit 
after paying a rollback penalty. Such a three-year rollback tax 
must be paid when the land is sold for a higher use. To a degree, 
this discourages the speculator from buying up a lot of farmland. 
Our experience in New Jersey may offer a challenge to residents 
of other States who would like to maintain, at least for a period, 
more open space as an asset to our urbanized society. 

Dr. JOHN CAREW. I wish to respond to those delegates who imply 
that the preservation of the small family farm and less modern farm- 
ing methods are valid means of maintaining the beauty of our farm 
landscape. Natural beauty and efficiency in commercial agriculture 
are totally compatible. Large size, mechanization, crop specializa- 
tion and the use of pesticides are generally synonymous with farm- 
ing efficiency. These characteristics are no more antibeauty than 
smallness, hand labor, crop diversity, and an abundance of weeds, in- 
sects, and diseases. There can be as much beauty in a 500-acre 
apple orchard tilled and managed with modern equipment and free 
of weeds, worms, and scab as there is in a 20-tree planting, pruned by 
hand and unprotected from a host of pests. There can be as much 
beauty in a modern well-landscaped and well-designed food process- 
ing plant as there is in a tiny cider press nestled in the woods. 


Beauty should never be equated with farm size or modernization. 
If we are to continue the progress that has characterized American 
agriculture, we must avoid any expressed or implied conflict be- 
tween natural beauty and the most efficient production of food and 
fiber. Our land must be a resource of economic strength as well 
as of beauty. 

Dr. SEARS. I would certainly concede that the workable size of a 
family unit has been greatly increased. My point is to relieve it 
from unfair and burdensome competition through the very extensive 
operations which are receiving an undue share of subsidy and are 
often used by people who have capital from other sources, to write 
off their tax loss. That is my point. 

HERSCHEL NEWSOM. I would like to follow up a bit on Mr. 
Alampi's remarks about the New Jersey experience. I suggest that 
it would be well for the staff and so-called faculty of this conference, 
to provide some sort of an indication or report as to similar steps that 
may have been taken in other States. 

All of us are confronting a vigorous search for new revenue within 
our respective States that is even worse than the search for revenue 
to finance the Federal Government, and we are going to have to have 
it to meet these financial requirements. 

How do we do it without imposing a penalty on the fellow that 
does beautify his section of rural America? Or perhaps from the 
nonrural point of view we might find that the industrialist who beau- 
tifies his own industrial site may be suffering a penalty that society 
cannot afford to have him suffer. I am only trying to say, Mr. 
Chairman, that somehow or other, if we might use this White House 
conference as a means of discovering what has been done, we might 
eliminate some research work on the part of those of us who are 
trying to help our respective counterparts out across the various 

JAMES WILSON. I would like to suggest that I was a little 
shook up, actually, when I started to come here, by a comment from 
someone who said, "Are you going to participate in another Federal 
boondoggle?" The thought had never crossed my mind that some 
people would be suspicious of the motives of the people gathering 
in Washington. But they are. I would like to suggest that a Fed- 
eral hierarchy is not necessary in this case, that we have existing gov- 
ernmental groups at State and county levels that can accomplish this 


job, and we have active, aggressive individual civic groups that can 
accomplish the job. 

What we really need is Federal guidance, stimulation, and edu- 
cation. I particularly like Professor Scheffey's idea for using the 
land grant colleges, the State universities, as a gathering place for the 
exchange of ideas. 

I would like to leave this thought with you. I see it working in 
Santa Clara County, where small county units and cities are accom- 
plishing a great amount of beauty and are preserving a fair amount 
of the countryside in the fastest-growing county in the United States. 

GEORGE SELKE. I wish to comment on the fact that most of the 
people of the United States will wish to see the 97 percent non-urban 
part of the United States that we are planning to make and keep 
beautiful. I am concerned about the way in which they get to the 
attractive places and what they do while there. I do not wish repli- 
cas of our old railroad depot areas to develop around our bus stations 
and airports or the sides of the highways to look like railtrack rib- 
bons. I also object to unsightly over-used campsites and to lovely 
mountain meadows ruined by picketed packtrain horses. 

We will need to pay more attention to the management of the 
people who go to see our lovely places. The beauty that we have 
or develop must be protected. 

WILLIAM GARNETT. It seems to me the greatest area for 
action that can come from the greatest gathering of knowledge that 
you people already have is the field of education to all levels of 

I think we can achieve, as was suggested from the panel, the desire 
for beauty through inspiration. I am tired of seeing examples of 
blight and the talk of litter. I think we need to put the emphasis 
on the positive. I think this education should be a national pro- 
gram aimed from the elementary school level forward, right up 
through and including a compulsory training on the part of all gov- 
ernment agencies that have projects of large scope. I am particu- 
larly aware of this, having recently worked quite intensively on a 
program with the Army Corps of Engineers. These men are fine 
engineers. They have had fine training. And they do fine engi- 
neering projects. But they do not comprehend what we are talking 
about when we talk about aesthetics and good design. 

They could not comprehend this because they have not had the 
training or the exposure. They cannot comprehend it because 


they have been limited by the rules and regulations of their organi- 
zation. They cannot devote money in their budget nor do they 
have the proper personnel to consider it. I feel we are now lacking a 
proper educational program. Visual experiences, written experi- 
ences, through our schools, will create a new generation that will 
be aware of it. 

I feel the people who are in the underpriveleged areas that were 
mentioned earlier, if given the opportunity to see what beauty is in 
other areas, will make an effort to change that situation in their own 

I would like to direct a question to Professor Scheffey. Have you 
given any thought how the pilot study that you have suggested could 
be implemented? I have been proposing such a study on the West 
Coast. How would you implement such a program, recognizing 
that it should be done in each area? What are the mechanics of 
getting something started? 

Dr. SCHEFFEY. I haven't given any thought to specifics. I think 
this would depend upon the area in which it is going on. What we 
might do in New England would be vastly different than what would 
take place in the Southeast or Southwest. 

Mrs. NATHANIEL A. OWINGS. I want to make a comment. I be- 
lieve a farm landscape is a dead landscape without life, without wild- 
life and birds. And the new elements affecting those two are the use, 
and overuse, and misuse of pesticides. 

I am one of many who hope that we can seek out and encourage 
safer pest control methods and further restraint in their application. 

Now, one other comment I have to make, more related to my Park 
Commission work, and that is a question directed to Dr. Darling. 
How might we control the use of peripheral lands around State and 
national parks? You spoke about this misuse of the lands on the 
edges of our parks, which we are all aware of. I am wondering if you 
are thinking of a kind of instant zoning when the park is acquired or 
are you thinking of an arm of the government moving in? 

This is something that we have not found an answer to and I, 
therefore, would ask what you had in mind. 

Dr. DARLING. At the moment, I believe you could not act very 
much above the county level. Zoning in this country is at the county 
level. But one would hope that it would reach the State level, that 
the use of lands could be guided at least. What is upsetting, I think, 


is when you have a national park and you get an excrescence of cheap 
amusement facilities, backed up against the gateway of the park, one 
you can see for perhaps 30 or 40 miles. I can think of one such 
place right now. 

Whether you can get action at anything higher than the county 
level, I don't know. This is why I said what is politically impossible 
at the moment should be politically practicable in the relatively 
near future. 

Mrs. MORSE ERSKINE. I speak definitely from the point of view 
of a frustrated citizen. I want to know why we shouldn't head into 
the question that has been so successful in the northern countries of 
Europe, the question of greenbelt zoning. In this, agricultural zoning 
is placed upon areas around cities that should be preserved for that 
use alone. The owners are left in possession of the land, but they 
are compensated if necessary. It is a zoning that cannot come from 
a local level. It must come from either Congress or State. Without 
that, citizens at my level are perfectly helpless to fight all sorts of 
decisions that are made in the belief that urban use is a higher use 
and agricultural lands must give way to it. 

I don't have to go into it. You know far more about it than I 
do. This is help for the citizens. 

Mrs. J. LEWIS SCOTT. The colleges and universities with strong 
departments in ecology should be consulted on natural resource man- 
agement. Diversity of vegetation and animals will help insure a 
beautiful landscape. Pesticides should be biologically selective with- 
out any food-chain or environmental damage. 

Dr. GRAHAM. Someone asked for an answer to the previous ques- 
tion. The question, it seemed to me, was whether or not local 
zoning, which means in this case county zoning, is sufficient, whether 
or not we don't need, in fact, statewide zoning, or possibly some kind 
of Federal zoning. 

As I understand it, there are very few counties actually in the 
United States that have zoning ordinances. Hawaii, I suppose, is 
the only State that has statewide zoning. I am not sure there is Fed- 
eral zoning, but this is something that we don't desire ; we can handle 
it some other way. Am I not right? 

Dr. DARLING. You spoke of northwest Europe. In Britain we 
had the Town and County Planning Act of 1947, which froze land 
values at the 1939 levels. This was a very good brake on develop- 


ment, but the speculative element in recent years has very greatly 
whittled away our Town and County Planning Act. I doubt whether 
you are ready for freezing land values at some point. 

I wasn't ready when that plan came out. But the older I have 
grown, the more I feel that it is right, that you will have finally to 
freeze land values if you are not going to get completely uncoordi- 
nated development. 


Mrs. VELMA GOOD. Many worthwhile comments were made re- 
garding the family farm in the panel on the Farm Landscape. 

The family farmer is concerned about keeping a healthy land- 
scape, as Mr. Sears mentioned. He is interested because his greatest 
desire is to pass on his land, well preserved, to his son and future 
generations. To the best of his ability he is efficient, follows soil 
conservation practices, controls weeds, fertilizes, etc. 

It is imperative that we keep this type of agriculture in our economy 
at whatever cost. The question I had hoped to ask was, "Would 
it be possible to include in your report a statement favoring the 
family farm pattern of agriculture?" 

RICHARD H. GOODWIN. We need some new thinking and planning 
to exploit the mutual and compatible interests of the city dweller 
who wishes to own land and enjoy a country landscape as a weekend 
and vacation place, and the farmer. In a system of private enterprise, 
plans might be developed for these two types of landowners to share 
the land the commuter providing some of the funds to support the 
tax base and the activities required to preserve the aesthetic qualities 
of the landscape ; the farmer providing the labor and equipment for 
the farming and maintenance operation while deriving some finan- 
cial support from the commuter. 

An example might be given in the case of a group of small country- 
estate owners needing the services of a farmer to cut hay and provide 
suitable livestock to maintain pastures. These people could more 
than cover the tax costs of maintaining the land as open space. 

DAVID K. HARTLEY.* Considerable mention was made in the 
panel on the Farm Landscape and in other panels of the conference 

*This is an extension of remarks made by Mr. Hartley during the panel 


about the importance of statewide comprehensive land use planning 
as a factor in preserving open space and natural beauty in the rural 

The State planning agency is the only unit that looks at all the 
land urban, suburban, and rural. Metropolitan planning agencies 
are confined to the area that is presently urbanized. It is the area 
outside the suburban fringe, where growth pressures will be experi- 
enced in coming decades, that needs attention now before the 
deluge of new subdivisions, expressways, industrial parks, and shop- 
ping centers descends. Rural county governments are most often 
ill-equipped to anticipate this growth ; in most cases they do not have 
the facts necessary to resist pressures of large developers. These facts 
are developed by the planning process through the rigorous research 
and design process by which competing land uses are balanced so 
that the whole landscape contains each legitimate activity in its right- 
ful place. In the absence of effective rural regional planning in most 
of the Nation, planning in what has been called "exurbia" or the 
rural fringe is done primarily by the State planning agency. 

Another point is that conservation, agriculture, and recreation are 
indeed becoming recognized as legitimate uses of land, entitled to 
equality in the comprehensive plans. However, this puts conserva- 
tion in competition with other uses residential, industrial, and com- 
mercial which traditionally have been considered higher uses in 
direct economic return both to the landowner and to the community 
as a whole. Criteria other than strict economic costs and benefits 
must be applied to justify reserving large tracts of land for those uses 
which are so important to human existence. This justification can 
never come without cooperation between central city interests and 
the farm areas. City residents benefit from a more beautiful land- 
scape just as much as those fortunate enough to live in daily contact 
with nature. And therefore city support is necessary in securing land 
for these purposes. The State comprehensive planning process is the 
mechanism for assuring that all uses of land receive due consideration 
in future growth patterns. 

Conversely, it behooves conservationists and persons concerned 
with recreation to insist on proper recognition for these important 
uses. State planning agencies should retain staff members with ex- 
perience and competence in resources planning. Advisory commit- 
tees of knowledgeable citizens should review plans while they are 
being made, not after they are published and all the decisions made. 
Conservationists should impose themselves into the planning process, 


because these plans are developed for political leaders who make 
decisions about future development patterns. 

Thus, the White House Conference on Natural Beauty does well in 
recommending support of statewide comprehensive plans. This is 
a key factor in lessening despoilation of the landscape. 

Mrs. DOROTHY L. MOORE. No mention was made of the large 
number (and acreage) of recently operated farms which have been 
bought for residential use, sometimes divided, sometimes as a whole. 
Though these come under no farm definition, unless operational, 
they are recognized by the Soil Conservation Service as an important 
field for assistance in conservation measures. In many districts of 
the northeast, and quite possibly in other areas of population con- 
centration, cooperators of this category outnumber those who are 
commercial farmers. If these former farm fields grow up to brush 
and scrub trees, they destroy the qualities of the farm landscape, 
which may have been a principal visual asset of the area. In any 
case, growth of trees will obliterate the views which were formerly 
made available with a foreground of crop patterns and green forage. 

The problem here is to help the new owners keep their fields in 
good shape. In addition to education, joint or district ownership of 
large rotary-type mowers is the only means at reasonable cost. In 
one area of northern Vermont (Lamoille County) the Future Fann- 
ers of America have bought and made available by the hour, with an 
operator, a six-foot rotary and tractor. This machine has reclaimed 
hundreds of acres that were past ordinary haying, making the land- 
scape more sightly and preserving the distant views of valley and 
mountain for which the area had become famous. 

Mrs. NATHANIEL OWINGS.* There was a time, not long ago, 
when land husbandry was part of the art of living. Today the farm 
landscape is increasingly a dead landscape devoid of birds at nest- 
ing time, and ever more lacking in those amenities of nature that have 
inspired mankind over the centuries. 

Ironically, the countryside has been impoverished in the name 
of production. The trend is due solely to a shortsighted over- 
emphasis on short-term economic gain. Efficient has come to mean 
only that which returns a fraction more on the dollar invested. The 
waste of resources is actually encouraged in the process, providing 
only that a profit be made today. 

*This is an extension of Mrs. Owings' remarks made during the panel 


We boast of increased agricultural output per man and rightly 
so, if our concern be strictly technological but we overlook de- 
clining net farm income and the increasing costs of maintaining the 
current overproduction. These higher costs are both direct, in dol- 
lars invested in Federal agricultural programs, and indirect, in 
disorderly human displacement from the land and in the death of too 
much of our landscape. 

One of the modern farmer's most destructive economic tools 
which has been responsible for the death of the landscape is the 
array of persistent chemical insecticides with which he has been 
encouraged, by land grant colleges and Washington bureaus, to 
poison the landscape. 

Man's long history is full of examples of foolish devotion to nar- 
row ends. Today's landscapes bear sad testimony to the over- 
emphasis on short-term economics too often advocated by our Fed- 
eral departments without clear policy formulation by the Congress. 
Our Nation, if it is to endure another 200 years, and truly profit 
from the scientific advances of the last 200 years, needs a national 
policy built on a lasting harmony between man and the land. Ag- 
riculture is still the major land use, so agriculture must be soundly 

A healthy landscape is one that produces more than an extra mar- 
gin of profit on the farmer's dollar. We have, in this fortunate coun- 
try, solved our problems of food production, are in fact embarrassed 
by food surpluses. Tomorrow's challenge is to maintain adequate 
production while restoring all those natural byproducts of nature that 
once made the farm landscape so satisfying. 

We can praise agricultural chemicals in the same breath that im- 
pels us to call for a restriction in the use of persistent chemical insecti- 
cides. This is no more than a President's Science Advisory Com- 
mittee and a Senate subcommittee have recently urged upon us. It 
is no illogic but a recognition of the complexities of the landscape. 

There are, fortunately, alternatives to our current overuse of these 
mischievous poisons. We need only to encourage the use of these 
alternatives with the same enthusiasm we have lent the chemical 
approaches. If some alternatives prove inadequate, we must invest 
more in the discovery of new and better methods to enable the farmer 
to produce the foods and fibers we want without poisoning the land- 
scape. We must, in short, devise a policy of land use that will nourish 
man's spirit by restoring that diversity of living things in the landscape 
that makes it both more stable and more rewarding to man. 


ROBERT L. PERKINS, Jr. The Chairman's remarks referred to a 
pond damaged by silt washed in from a housing development. Since 
many such developments get Federal assistance in the form of mort- 
gage guarantees one method of protecting the landscape would be to 
require that proper steps to reduce silt run-off and other damage 
outside a subdivision be taken in order to make the development 
eligible for Federal participation. Possibly a way could be found 
to bring in soil conservation personnel at the subdivision stage. 

In general, a workable system is needed for the regional coordina- 
tion of the many Federal activities affecting the landscape. This 
would include hopefully, the coordination of all Federal programs 
with the objective, recognized by this conference, of protecting and 
enhancing the appearance and quality of the environment. To 
handle conflicts in Federal and federally supported projects a regional 
evaluation system might be set up aimed at providing an orderly 
resolution of conflicts in the process of which all resource values 
get appropriate consideration. 

A number of other suggestions follow : A way is needed to retain 
some of the natural and semi-natural landscape features of rural 
lands being transformed into urban or suburban communities. 
Changes in Federal housing activities and regulations might be made 
to help produce an incentive for local approval of cluster develop- 
ments or at least some form of density zoning which, with appropri- 
ate site planning, would permit leaving features such as steep slopes 
and stream valleys unbuilt upon. A combination of restrictions, 
incentives and more flexible building codes should be sought to 
permit the actual buildings ( commercial, housing and public ) to be 
more closely adapted to the existing landscape. Better limits and 
controls are needed for earth moving, since it produces about the 
most long lasting and widespread landscape blots. More attention 
should be given to the suitability of land for development, partic- 
ularly soil and water conditions, in determining eligibility for FHA 
and VA mortgages. 

Our present system which leaves zoning and planning authority 
largely in the hands of local government in most of the country, is 
outmoded by changes in density and our way of living. Much neces- 
sary zoning and planning cannot be handled at the local level. 
Leaving all this power in the hands of local government often reduces 
the freedom it is aimed at protecting. Poorly informed or motivated 
local officials often make sweeping decisions which have a marked 
effect on large numbers outside the jurisdiction where the decision 


is made. The competitive struggle to attract industry and com- 
mercial development for ratables results in a scattering of such de- 
velopment that in turns creates a monotonous uniformity over wide 
areas which reduces the choices of environment to live in. 

A new category should be considered for National Park Service 
projects, one to handle natural and scenic areas which are of na- 
tional or regional significance, but are too small to qualify for exist- 
ing Service categories. 

A systematic designation of areas of special scenic or natural value 
is needed so that they can be given as much protection as possible 
by programs in which the Federal Government participates. Where 
the owner of such areas desires to protect them, some plan of Federal 
assistance that does not involve outright ownership should be avail- 
able. Lease and easement arrangements can be worked out by 
which the Federal Government would be given an interest in land 
under the primary jurisdiction of others so as to permit Federal 
intervention in cases involving eminent domain. Thus, a Federal 
agency would have authority to protect some important lands, when 
it felt this was justified, without having first to assume the adminis- 
trative burden and costs of those lands. 

MINOTT SILLIMAN, Jr. President Johnson has asked for sugges- 
tions on specific activities that might be furthered in the field of 
natural beauty. The Soil Conservation Society of America is a 
technical and educational organization dedicated to advancing the 
science and art of good land use. The 1 2,000 members are actively 
engaged in the conservation movement of this world. 

As these members work with landowners and operators of private 
lands and with the care of public lands they are conscious that the 
conservation of soil, water, and related natural resources are all about 
us in the lands of America. 

The Soil Conservation Society of America has developed a booklet, 
"Help Keep Our Land Beautiful" by taking a typical American 
family through their countryside where they see good productive soil 
which produces their food, the trees that produce their lumber, and 
the land that produces the wildlife. 

It is important that all people recognize the value of looking at the 
farms for beauty. Good productive farms, with top soil in place, 
are a thing of beauty and produce clean runoff water for our streams. 

Civic clubs have provided many of these educational-type booklets 


on soil and water conservation published by the SCSA (Soil Con- 
servation Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa) as reference material 
for schools. 

Dr. J. HAROLD SEVER AID. As offensive to me as a junkyard is an 
old ramshackle barn, or other farm building, unpainted and tumbling 
down, if not already collapsed. I heard no one complain about this. 
Therefore, I propose that steps be taken to coerce or cajole the owners 
of such offenses along primary public and scenic highways to dispose 
of unsalvageable buildings and to fix up and paint up salvageable 
ones. It would be worth matching grants to accomplish this. A 
well kept farm is attractive. A poorly kept up one is an eyesore. This 
applies to discarded or improperly housed farm machinery also. 

MAX M. THARP. Creation of wildlife sanctuaries wherever pos- 
sible is desirable to preserve our diminishing population of animals 
and birds for the enjoyment of our people. Such sanctuaries are 
extensive users of rural land and would be particularly suited to farm- 
lands not now needed for agricultural production. These areas 
could act as land reserves available for future agricultural produc- 
tion if needed. Such areas could be developed in their natural 
setting and managed to preserve their natural ecology. They would 
provide for the needs of educational institutions for study of plant 
and animal life in a natural habitat. 

PAUL E. WAGGONER. We are here talking of natural beauty for 
the immediate reason that our President led us. But we must realize 
why we are able to think of amenities and why the President's lead- 
ership will bear fruit. Then we can better assure that we will con- 
tinue enjoying amenities rather than suffering squalor. 

A startling increase in yield per acre has released people from toil 
in the field, it has fed more people on a decreased acreage and it has 
freed hillsides from tillage. Thus we have ease to enjoy, food to eat, 
and fields to landscape. This is why we are able to think of natural 
beauty and able to restore natural beauty. 

The prerequisite for continued concern and preservation of natural 
beauty is not a retrogression in the science and art of farming, but 
greater improvements that will increase yields per acre still more 
and thus free still more acres for landscaping, while feeding the 
growing numbers of people who would enjoy the view. 

Dr. T. T. WILLIAMS. Mr. Monk made a statement yester- 
day that beauty rarely exists in a poverty environment. In this 


affluent society there are too large a percentage of our rural people 
who live under such a condition. I would hope that this group go 
on record in favor of incorporating the basic philosophy and/or pro- 
grams of the Economic Opportunity Act in developing rural Amer- 
ica's natural beauty. 

As land is acquired for parks, roads, and recreation facilities let 
us not exploit the poor small farmer who because of his economic and 
political position is more vulnerable than relatively large farmers 
or landholders. Thus, I would like to have this committee recom- 
mend to the President that when acquiring land from low-income 
families that it be done on a long-term lease basis rather than through 
outright cash purchase. The seller will receive from the government 
a monthly check based upon a cost-of -living index. This approach 
will serve to ( 1 ) raise the living standard of the low-income farm 
family, and (2) give him a degree of dignity and respect to know 
that he is receiving an income by providing a product land rather 
than a welfare payment. The government will have first option on 
the land if the owner desires to sell. 



1 :30 p.m., Monday, May 24 

The Chairman, Mr. MOTT. Landscape rehabilitation is a subject 
on which your chairman is not an expert, nor is he familiar in detail 
with some of the subjects that will be discussed in connection with it. 

I am impressed with the fact that man in his inventive genius, 
coupled with the country's wealth and the advanced technology of 
the United States, has been able to conceive, design, and produce a 
machine for strip mining operations which will move 210 tons of 
earth every 55 seconds. This is a mammoth machine. It is taller 
than the Niagara Falls, as high as the Golden Gate Bridge in Cali- 
fornia and is eight traffic lanes wide. 

I also learned that there is a company in the United States whose 
genius for organization and logistics is capable of moving from 
Jamaica to Mississippi 4 million tons of bauxite each year, and this 
amount will be increased to 6 million tons next year. 

The efficiency and organizational ability of the sand, gravel, and 
rock-crushing industry made it possible to mine, process and move 
1,500 million tons of sand, gravel, and crushed rock this year to 
satisfy the needs of the building and construction industry. 

It is estimated that within the next five years 4 billion tons of sand, 
gravel, and crushed rock will be required to build the country's 
bridges, buildings, and boulevards. 

I mention these facts to give you some idea of the scope and magni- 
tude of the industries in the United States that are now mining for 
sand, gravel, rock, and coal. We need sand, gravel, and crushed 

Members of the Panel on Reclamation of the Landscape were 
William Bramble, Harry M. Caudill, H. E. Collins, Edward K. 
Davison, William Perm Mott, Jr. (Chairman), Representative Rich- 
ard L. Ottinger, Hamilton K. Pyles, and Donald N. Stocker. Staff 
Associate was Julian Feiss. 

779-59565 21 315 


rock to build our freeways. We need coal for coke to feed our steel 
mills and to produce electricity. These companies are helping to 
build the United States, to build our Great Society and they are an 
important part of the economic growth of this country. 

It seems to me that the creative mind of man, the country's wealth, 
and our advanced technology could devise ways of restoring the 
beauty of the landscape destroyed by surface mining, effectively and 
efficiently, if the same effort is directed toward restoration as has been 
expended in extraction. 

Have we not come to the realization that our natural resources 
are neither inexhaustible nor indestructible? The public's interest 
in the landscape of this country requires that the utilization of our 
natural resources, so essential to the growth and development of the 
economy of this country, be mined according to a plan that envisions 
the restoration of the area to its former beauty and this dictates a 
policy of mining that must, by advanced regional planning and 
control, be established that will protect the ecology and environment 
of that area and guarantee to the people the restoration of the beauty 
and productivity of the land at whatever cost and by whatever means 
is necessary. 

There can be no halfway measures nor can there be a timid 
approach to solving this problem. The extraction of coal, sand, 
gravel, and crushed rock from the earth has not been a timid 

The seal of California states, "Give me men to match my moun- 
tains." We have developed machines to tear down and destroy 
the mountains. Now it's time to give us men with the wisdom and 
courage to restore beauty to the landscape, matching the beauty and 
majesty of the mountains. 

Provincial thinking, politics, and the exploitation of our natural 
resources must not enter into the discussion. Every citizen has an 
interest and should be concerned. Private enterprise, if it is to be 
worthy of the great advances and the economic growth that it has 
so ably fostered, must from now on accept responsibility for restora- 
tion of the mined areas and the wise use of our natural resources in 
the total public interest. In other words, profit and quality of the 
environment must be considered together, not separately. 

Mr. PYLES. The quality of our landscapes suffers from a variety 
of causes including erosion gullies, wildfires, subdivision scalp- 
ing, slovenly road construction, and many other acts that bare 


the soil without care or safeguards. However, of all the scars on 
our landscapes, surface mine operations, both past and current, 
present the greatest problems and the greatest opportunities for better- 
ment. So my remarks on the rehabilitation of landscapes are con- 
fined to surface mine operations. 

First, I want to acknowledge all the good work that has been and 
is being done by progressive industry engaged in surface mining. In 
many cases, formerly unproductive lands have been turned into use- 
ful, productive areas after mining operations. 

Unfortunately, all this good rehabilitation work is not keeping pace 
with new surface disturbances; nor have we made a worthwhile dent 
in the job of rehabilitating mined-out areas of the past where no 
authority exists to correct it. Streams continue to be polluted and 
related resources are degraded. 

We are all generally aware of the scope and nature of this prob- 
lem and it serves no purpose to wring our hands or point a ringer 
of blame. The real questions are : What needs to be done, and how 
can we best meet these needs? 

We are at the beginning of a long-term program. The first step 
is an accurate survey of the job to be done and the development of 
a comprehensive program for rehabilitating surface-mined areas of 
the United States. This is now provided for by the Appalachian 
Regional Development Act. 

As we start on this long-term program, certain short-term actions 
can go forward now with the full expectation that they will not be 
out of step with the over-all program to be developed. One example 
is a provision for the rehabilitation of mined areas on public lands in 
the Appalachian Region. Another is to continue to step up research 
in all problems of surface mining and restoration. Yet another is 
the action that communities, companies, and individuals can take 
on planning and developing mined areas for productive use in local 

We can probably sort the rehabilitation problem into several gen- 
eral categories for recommended action. One category is the sur- 
face-mined lands in steep, mountainous country. Here the cost of 
restoring the land to its original value may exceed by many times 
the original market value of land surface or the market value of 
restored lands. 

Another category is the surface-mined areas on level and rolling 
topography. Here restoration may be profitable. These categories 


can be further divided between the past and abandoned, and those 
being currently mined or planned for future operation. 

In the category of older, abandoned surface mines in steep, 
mountainous country, the private landowner cannot be expected to 
provide full rehabilitation because of the dollar loss involved. The 
costs of restoring lands in this category will either have to be shared 
or borne entirely by public funds. 

The use of public funds for a greatly expanded program of re- 
habilitation can be justified by the public interest in removal of 
ugly scars on the landscape; improved water quality of streams; 
availability of additional public lands for recreation purposes; and 
other benefits. To some degree, the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund provides a means for the Federal Government and States to 
acquire in fee, or acquire an interest in, those lands where outdoor 
recreation use would be the major purpose. The States should 
find a place for this kind of acquisition in their statewide compre- 
hensive recreational plans that are a prerequisite for funds under 
the Land and Water Conservation Act. 

On the other hand, restoring surface-mined areas on level and 
rolling topography could be profitable for imaginative investors and 
communities. It is in these areas that cost sharing and technical 
assistance from Federal and State governments might best be con- 
fined to planning phases of rehabilitation and future use. 

Many strip-mined areas in this category have already been re- 
stored to a useful purpose and often to a higher surface value than 
the original lands. Agencies, mechanisms, and skills are presently 
available at Federal and State levels to assist in this work but specific 
legislative direction is needed to carry it out. 

In addition, we need more uniformity in the development and 
administration of surface mining laws by the States. Existing State 
laws vary widely in substance and application, creating indecision 
and unfair economic advantage among the States. As a minimum, 
these laws should include basic principles common to all States where 
surface mining is practiced. 

For present and future surface mining, we suggest the following 
set of basic principles : 

First, all surface mine operations should be based upon an oper- 
ating plan that includes not only methods and time schedules of 
extraction and restoration, but also a portrayal of its final appear- 
ance and prospective use. The treatment of waste dumps, roads, 


tipples, and other temporary structures should be included as a 
part of the plan. 

Second, surface restoration costs should be considered as much a 
part of the total costs of mineral extraction as core drilling or hauling 
the mineral to market. 

Third, specifics of restoration must be adjusted to the landscape 
needs of authorized planning units. These planning units would 
include highway landscape plans, and community, county, or region- 
al landscape plans. 

Finally, if these principles for action are to be met within the 
margin of profit, there is a need for new kinds of equipment and 
methods directed at reducing costs of the total job. The combined 
effort of government scientists and the scientists and engineers of 
the mining industry should be brought to bear on developing new 
types of equipment that will realize the full utilization of our mineral 
resources without irreparable damage to the landscapes. 

In sum, there is a need to ( 1 ) survey and develop a sound pro- 
gram for restoration of surface-mined areas ; ( 2 ) continue and step 
up a research program on all the problems of restoration, including 
equipment and methods; (3) demonstrate restoration and land- 
scape values on public lands; (4) provide technical assistance and 
a sharing of costs in planning restoration on suitable private lands; 
(5) correct the past damage on steep, mountainous lands at what- 
ever expense is necessary ; and ( 6 ) encourage the adoption of com- 
mon principles in State laws governing surface-mining operations. 

Dr. BRAMBLE. Reclamation of spoil bank areas that are an after- 
math of strip mining for coal, is one of the important modern prob- 
lems that faces the country in beautification of the landscape. It is 
a problem that can and must be solved if we are to retain the natural 
beauty of certain heavily populated sections of the country that are 
in position to be viewed by many thousands of people. 

It is vital to remember that strip mining is a common and eco- 
nomical method of mining coal in at least 12 mid western and 
eastern States. It is a vital part of the economy of these States. For 
example, in Indiana about 15J/2 million tons of coal valued at $62 
million are mined each year and over 70 percent of the coal mined 
is by strip mining. About 67 percent of this coal is used in generating 
electric power, and about 2 billion tons of coal remain available for 
recovery mining, which at present consumption rates could last about 
1,000 years. 


The spoil banks left by strip mining create a strikingly ugly blot 
on the landscape that is all out of proportion to the percent of land 
stripped. Moreover, strip mining has often led to stream pollution, 
either alone or in combination with deep mining. Using Indiana 
again as an example, while only about 2 percent of the land area 
has been affected in the 19 strip mining counties and while acres- 
per-county vary from only 20 to 16,755 acres, strip mining disturbs 
the landscape in all 19 counties and is a major eyesore in at least 15. 
In regards to pollution, it is well known that acid materials seep into 
the Patoka River and reportedly make it barren of fish life for about 
58 miles. Looking at a broader view of six States which border on 
the Ohio River, about 5,194 miles of streams are affected in that 
area by acid mine pollution. 

The vegetation of all but a few highly acid spoil banks can be suc- 
cessfully done with trees, shrubs, and grasses. A great deal of planting 
with these materials has been done but there are gaps in reclamation 
that need more attention, particularly in beautification along roads 
and highways. In Indiana about 82,475 acres have been strip mined, 
and of these, 69,092 acres have been reclaimed and 9,476 acres of 
water have been produced. The latter are a source of excellent fish- 
ing where not polluted by acid materials. 

In nearly all States where strip mining is widespread there are laws 
that regulate strip mining and provide for reclamation. These laws 
vary from State to State. Considerable differences exist among 
them in the degree of leveling required, and in methods of in- 
spection and enforcement. A study of existing State regulations 
should be made immediately as a basis for recommending model 
and effective State regulations. These should be so drawn up that 
they could be fitted to the special geologic, topographic and eco- 
nomic conditions of the various States. A uniform Federal law 
should not be imposed upon the States involved. 

A solution to the strip mine problems should be sought in strong 
State regulations supported by active mining associations and 
corporations. This would require professional reclamation staffs 
employed by the mining industry to be reinforced by Federal 
and State cooperation in such items as planting stock and inspec- 
tion. The present Federal agencies are adequate to do this 
with cooperation of the State conservation departments and mining 
industries if adequate financial support is given. Such a system has 
worked in Indiana for a number of years. Shakamak State Park 


and the Green Sullivan State Forest are major recreational areas 
that indicate how beauty can be created where strip mining had 
disturbed a large percent of the land area. 

Specific needs of the immediate future are reclamation along high- 
ways and beautification of the landscape around the water impound- 
ments that have been created by strip mining. This will require 
State and county planning for rehabilitation to provide for outdoor 
recreation, hunting and fishing, and production of wood products. 
Such a program could be made a top priority for use of the new Land 
and Water Conservation funds and for the Bureau of Outdoor Recre- 
ation to help plan and acquire reclaimed land for development of 
public recreation areas in mining States. 

Mr. STOCKER. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co., an investor- 
owned electric utility, serves a 10,000-square-mile area in central 
eastern Pennsylvania. The northeastern portion of this territory 
contains the anthracite area which had a one-industry economic 
base for many years. 

The anthracite industry's decline resulted in the loss of 58,000 
mining jobs from 1945 to 1960 and the emigration of 100,000 
people. It also ignited the tremendous spirit and action of the people 
in the region to aggressively seek new diversified industries. Their 
achievements have been outstanding a gain of 31,000 new manu- 
facturing jobs in the last 10 years alone. 

The anthracite area has had many tools to work with . . . plant- 
sites, shell buildings, low-cost financing, a supply of capable and 
willing workers, friendly people, convenience to the Nation's largest 
markets, transportation, schools, housing, and a willingness to co- 
operate among communities. However, new trends have been oc- 
curring in plant location studies. Site selection is becoming more 
sophisticated. Ever increasing importance is being placed on area 

There are sharp contrasts in the natural environment of the anthra- 
cite area. From one side of a mountain you can see a lovely fertile 
valley. From the other side of the same mountain the view is marred 
by spoil and culm banks and the scars of strip mining. Years of 
mining operation have left their mark on the area. Though the 
scars are evidence of the region's extensive and continuing contribu- 
tion to progress, they are, at the same time, becoming an increasingly 
greater deterrent to accelerating the area's economy. 

Here is where remedial action had to be taken in the anthracite 


area. In line with its comprehensive area development activities, 
P.P. & L. accepted the responsibility for initiating a beautification 
program throughout the anthracite area. The program is called 
Operation Trees. The objective is to establish vegetation trees for 
the most part either to screen the view of disturbed areas or to cover 
disturbed areas entirely. The landscape would then become attrac- 
tive which would, in turn, enhance the region's opportunities for 
securing new industries. 

In July 1961, P.P. & L. contracted for research to be undertaken 
by the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, U.S. Department 
of Agriculture. They prepared maps delineating and classifying 
all disturbed areas by spoil type and existing tree cover. They also 
indicated the areas requiring screen and cover plantings and they 
indicated potential water recreation sites. 

Their survey showed a total disturbed area of about 175 square 
miles. They estimated 20 million trees would be required for the 
conspicuous, most unsightly areas that were easily visible from the 
main roads. Less than a million would be for screen plantings 
and the remainder would be cover plantings. 

In addition to mapping, the research work is also determining 
the growth and survival rate of various species of trees on mine banks, 
and the suitability of various trees for cover and screening purposes. 

Research is being conducted on areas which were planted by the 
Pennsylvania Department of Forests and Water and the Department 
of Mines and Mineral Industries. Eleven species have so far been 
found to survive on 172 plots located throughout the region. These 
11 species have been classified as to survival, vigor, aspect, height, 
age, soil material, and slope. 

In addition, 40 experimental areas were planted by the Forest 
Service during the 1963 spring planting season, so that other species 
could be determined suitable for planting on spoil banks. However, 
this information will not be available until next year. P.P. & L. 
contacted the major mining interests to inform them of this program 
and they have been most cooperative. 

With the completion of the initial phases of the research work in 
1963, P.P. & L. planted five sample areas along arterial highways 
with ball and burlap trees. These gave the public an opportunity 
to see the potential effect of the screening program. 

Our next step was an extensive campaign to secure volunteer 
groups who would assist in the first mass screen plantings in 1964. 


P.P. & L. purchased over 250,000 seedlings from private nurseries 
and they were planted last year around 33 communities by 2,700 
volunteers from 139 organizations. This spring an additional 
225,000 seedlings were planted through the same type of cooperative 

The proper choice of species, and their positions in a roadside 
screen, are important for rapid initial effects and for long-time shield- 
ing. Slow-growing evergreens like the spruces, which hold their 
branches for many years, should be planted in the front portion of 
a screen. The central portion should consist of faster growing ever- 
greens, such as pines. The portion farthest from the road should 
be planted by still faster growing species, which can be deciduous. 

It should be stressed that efforts must be concentrated on planting 
seedlings because of the ease of planting them and because of the vast 
areas to be planted. Balled and burlapped stock could require fer- 
tilizer, lime, and great quantities of water. Seedlings have a much 
better chance to establish themselves. 

Whether we plant seedlings or ball and burlap stock, we can never 
expect 1 00 percent survival. Too many factors enter into the picture 
which could cause the death of a tree even before planting. Trans- 
portation, exposing roots to the air before planting, and even the 
method of planting could cause death of the tree. However, we 
can expect a high percentage of the trees to survive. 

Planting areas are selected on the basis of their suitability for 
planting and the physical results which they render. In all cases, 
P.P. & L.'s forester prepares a soil analysis of each planting site and 
recommends the species to plant in that particular area. 

We are hopeful the screen plantings will be completed within an- 
other two years. 

What has been our experience to date on this program and what 
do we see ahead? 

1 . Operation Trees was designed as a volunteer self-help program. 
A good part of the plantings have been made by youth groups. We 
feel this has been one of the most important aspects of the entire 
activity the willingness on the part of the young people to actively 
participate in beautifying their home areas. 

2. We found that changes are continually occurring in the status 
of potential planting sites. A few examples under governmental 
programs some of the huge culm banks are being utilized to flush 
nearby deep-mined areas; the Pennsylvania Department of Mines 


and Mineral Industries makes extensive cover plantings each year; 
some of the disturbed areas are being reclaimed and developed for 
residential, commercial, and industrial purposes; and the recently 
enacted Appalachian development program will reclaim some of the 
disturbed area. 

We are now in the process of updating the maps as an aid to de- 
termining the present status of the problem and the scheduling of 
new plantings. 

3. Further research is needed and it is being contracted for by 
P.P. & L. covering growth and survival of various tree species. 

New areas of our cooperative research include determining plant 
material which, in addition to being able to survive in this unique 
environment, can be planted by mechanical processes. Experi- 
ments with some grasses have not been successful to date. Research 
is also being conducted on materials such as crown vetch which would 
become a catalytic agent for other plant material by supplying nitro- 
gen-fixing bacteria. 

This research work has cost P.P. & L. $75,000 to date. We feel 
the Northeastern Forest Experiment Station of the U.S. Department 
of Agriculture is doing an outstanding job in working on the specific 
problems relating to the anthracite area. We recommend the de- 
partment be utilized in other problem areas. 

In conclusion, our experience indicates that, wherever possible, 
there is real merit in having local people made a part of local recla- 
mation and beautification projects. 

Mr. COLLINS. In considering land reclamation and restora- 
tion in our two countries it is necessary to appreciate the contrasting 
conditions. Although the land area of the United States of America 
is nearly 40 times that of the United Kingdom, the population is only 
3J/2 times greater. Thus, the density of population in the United 
Kingdom is over 10 times that of the United States of America. 
Whilst, therefore, the problems of land conservation are similar, 
the scale is different. 

It is largely this difference in scale which led to the passing of our 
first Town and Country Planning Act in 1947. Broadly speaking, 
the effect of this and subsequent acts is that the permission of the 
local planning authority is required for any new development in- 
volving the use of land. Because planning authorities can impose 
conditions on land use, it is possible to obtain some degree of control 
over both the siting and the development of new buildings and in- 


dustries. This has led to the creation of greenbelts in and around 
our cities and the cessation of ribbon development, which is the 
extension of industrial and domestic building along the frontages of 
the main roads from our towns. In particular, planning control has 
helped to minimize the effects of dumping and excavation which 
have in the past been major causes of dereliction in the United 
Kingdom and it is dereliction that I would particularly like to talk 
about today. 

In 1963, His Royal Highness, the Duke of Edinburgh, called a 
conference representative of organizations in Great Britain vitally 
concerned with land preservation and conservation to discuss the 
theme: "The Countryside in 1970." At this conference I repre- 
sented the National Goal Board and I presented two papers outlining 
the land restoration work which followed open-cast or strip mining 
of coal. A number of recommendations were made and progress 
with these is to be considered at a further conference to be held in 
October this year. It is therefore with considerable interest that I 
attend this White House conference. 

It seems to me that if conservation is to be effective, the first essen- 
tial is general acceptance of the fact that in these days of rapid 
change, the control of land use, and particularly of dereliction, is 
equally as important as many of the other forms of control to which 
we are all subject. If this is accepted there appear to be two main 
tasks: (1) to obtain a suitable measure of control over what we 
do in the future and (2) to clean up the legacy of the past. 

As to what is a suitable measure of control, the needs may vary 
in our two countries because of the difference in scale which I men- 
tioned earlier. In the United Kingdom, for instance, with a popula- 
tion of 53 million, we have 70,000 square miles only of agricultural 
land. It is certain, too, that between now and the year 2000 the 
quantity of land in use for industry, housing, services and so on will 
increase considerably. The pressure on our land is therefore much 
greater than it is in the U.S.A. For this reason we probably require 
a somewhat greater degree of control than may be necessary here. 

In Great Britain the mining industry has been responsible for more 
land desecration than any other industry and the National Goal 
Board has been faced with the problem of derelict land in all coal- 
fields in the country. Deep mining of coal leaves its scars of waste 
dumps and subsidence damage to land and property. Strip mining 
of coal causes loss of amenity whilst the operation is in progress but 
leaves no permanent scars. However, coal represents only about 4 


percent of all strip mining, iron ore, sand, gravel, and clay being 
responsible for the balance of the 200 million tons of mineral pro- 
duced annually from surface mining. 

With regard to the deep mining of coal, it has been possible to 
mitigate any surface damage caused by subsidence, in some cases 
by back-filling underground, and also by what we call harmonic 
extraction of the coal seams which so limits the stresses set up in 
surface buildings that damage is obviated despite a lowering of the 
surface. Special structural precautions are normally taken with 
new buildings on land liable to mining subsidence. 

Work is also proceeding to eliminate the ugliness of waste dumps. 
Some of the material is used for brickmaking and vast quantities 
have been removed for the construction of new motorways. We are 
now contemplating the use of this waste material for the manufacture 
of aggregate used in concrete constructions. Where it is not possible 
to utilize the waste material, much work is being done in contouring 
the dumps in conformity with the surrounding countryside. Experi- 
ments are in hand for planting the contoured dumps with suitable 

In strip mining the land has always been completely restored ever 
since this form of coal mining was started in 1942. This not only 
involves filling the final void, which can sometimes be extremely 
expensive, but we have to strip and segregate subsoil and topsoil. 
When the site has been regraded and the soil replaced, fences are 
erected, ditches are dug, and the land is then given a 5 -year course 
of agricultural rehabilitation by the Ministry of Agriculture on behalf 
of the National Coal Board. This includes intensive fertilization 
and the installation of tile drainage. The average cost of this restora- 
tion, excluding the filling of the final void, is in the order of $1 per 
ton of coal extracted. This may well seem high to my mining friends 
in the U.S.A., but even after meeting this cost we still manage to 
make a profit of about $2 per ton on our strip-mined coal. 

In an endeavor to improve our restoration even further and to 
enable us to screen our operations from view when working close 
to housing or major roads, we have in the past two years been using 
mechanical equipment designed and developed in the United States 
of America for transplanting semi -mature trees. (We are par- 
ticularly indebted to the Civic Trust who pioneered semi-mature 
tree transplanting in Great Britain and to the authorities of the Mor- 
ton Arboretum near Chicago for the know-how of the system.) 


This is not a planning requirement, but something we have instituted 
ourselves in order to reduce the impact of strip mining on the 

It is now generally accepted in the United Kingdom that, al- 
though our strip mining operations are unsightly during the working 
of a site, we do restore the land surface often in an improved con- 
dition. For example, one site in Scotland, containing between 25 
and 30 million tons of coal, was useless bogland when we started 
strip mining five years ago. When complete there will be made avail- 
able 350 acres of good agricultural land; already part of the site has 
been restored and sheep are grazing on the grassland. In addition, 
we will construct a landscaped lake which will provide recreation 
in the form of sailing and fishing. In other cases we have provided 
golf courses and sports fields for use of the local people who had 
been temporarily affected by our strip mining operations. 

Turning now to the question of past dereliction, although again 
the scale is undoubtedly different, we are, I feel, on common ground 
in that much of the dereliction in both countries probably tends to 
be concentrated in the older industrial areas, many of which were 
developed with little or no regard to the environmental needs of the 
people who lived and worked there. I cannot help feeling that 
in areas such as this, properly planned reclamation offers us an 
opportunity to go some way towards bringing these areas back into 
line with life in the second half of the 20th century an opportunity 
to cut adrift from the old ideas of concentrated urban sprawl, and to 
bring the countryside back into our urban districts so that beauty 
can in fact become part of our daily life. 

There is little doubt that where dereliction occurs in areas of high 
population it can have a serious effect on both the social and economic 
life of those areas. When environment deteriorates the social, 
sometimes the economic structure tends to deteriorate with it. 

Fortunately, with modern earthmoving and tree-transplanting 
techniques, we have the means of carrying out reclamation on a 
scale and at a speed which were undreamed of at the beginning 
of this century. We have the means, and our generation will be 
judged by the use we make of them. The answer in both our coun- 
tries almost certainly lies in how much we are prepared to spend 
today for the benefit of those who will follow us. 

Mr. DAVISON. The largest of the extractive industries in terms 
of tons produced are the sand and gravel and the crushed stone 


industries. Currently, their combined production is about 1J/2 bil- 
lion tons annually. It is anticipated, on the basis of trends since 
the close of World War II, that by 1970 production will be some- 
where between 1 % and 2 billion tons annually. By far the largest 
portions of these minerals are used for concrete for all types of 
structures; for bases; slabs and surfaces of highways and streets; 
and for the repair and resurfacing of highways and streets. While 
they are of fairly wide occurrence, many deposits are not suitable 
for construction use because of poor quality, nonresistance to weather- 
ing or traffic abrasion, or because of unsuitable gradation. 

Sand, gravel, and stone used as construction aggregates must be 
produced near the points of use as they are heavy-loading, low-value 
materials. The average length of haul by rail is about 80 miles; 
the average length of haul by water is about 35 miles; hauls by 
truck, now accounting for about 80 percent of the transportation of 
these commodities, rarely exceed 30 to 35 miles. The major portion 
of production must of necessity occur within or on the fringes of 
metropolitan areas where construction is concentrated. 

The competition for land in such areas has become, without ques- 
tion, the most serious problem faced by a majority of the commercial 
producers of aggregates, and the situation can only become increas- 
ingly critical. Mr. Dennis O'Harrow, Executive Director of the 
American Society of Planning Officials, in an address to the National 
Sand & Gravel Association entitled, "The Urban Future," projected 
that the 1 00 million people expected to be added to our urban popu- 
lation in about the next 30 years will need urban facilities equivalent 
to 2 */2 to 3 times the present facilities of the well-known "megalop- 
olis" extending along the eastern seaboard from Boston to Wash- 
ington. He further said : 

To get quantitative about land : our experience shows that for each 
person added to the population of an urban area, about one-quarter 
acre is converted from nonurban to urban use. For our basic 100 
million (additional) urban population we shall need 57,500 square 
miles of land, slightly more land than there is in the entire State of 

Some projections of sand and gravel demand, which I believe 
to be reasonable, have indicated that, whereas production from the 
close of World War II to the present has totaled a little over 7.1 
billion tons, demand could total nearly 10/ 2 billion tons in the next 
ten years, and an additional 14 billion tons in the succeeding ten 


years. Crushed stone demand for concrete and roadstone purposes 
alone runs at about 50 percent of sand and gravel demand, and there 
is presently no reason to expect much change in that relation. In 
short, it is reasonably predictable that production of these construc- 
tion aggregates in the next 20 years will be 3 to 85/2 times what it 
has been in the last 1 9 years. 

As might be expected, where most marketing areas are generally 
limited to an area within 30 to 50 miles of the site of extraction, the 
degree of criticalness of presently available reserves varies widely 
across the country. Some limited information available to the Na- 
tional Sand & Gravel Association has indicated that reserves of sand 
and gravel held or controlled by a representative sample of producers 
have an average remaining life at recent rates of production ranging 
from over 40 years in Alabama and Mississippi to about six years in 
Connecticut and Minnesota. In the Los Angeles metropolitan 
area one of the largest construction markets in the world reliable 
testimony before a California legislative committtee pointed out the 
probability that every acre zoned for sand and gravel extraction 
at the time of the investigation would be depleted by 1975. It was 
testified that known deposits near those presently being worked could 
add about 15 years' supply if zoning authority will protect these 
additional areas from encroachment and permit extraction. Other- 
wise, it was estimated, transportation from more remote areas into 
this urban construction market will probably add in excess of $70 
million a year to construction costs in the area. 

The public interest requires economical and orderly development 
of all natural resources the surface of the land the water the 
minerals. Orderly development needs recognition by all interests 
the public, conservation people, planning people, and the extractive 
industries of the benefits of planning for multiple use of land. 
Multiple use allows extraction of the mineral values followed by 
preparation of the land for any number of facilities and uses park- 
land, recreation areas, homes, commercial and industrial establish- 
ments, sewage plants, water reservoirs, and to the alarm of many 
people sanitary landfills. Many companies in the sand and gravel 
and crushed stone industries have in the past and are now accom- 
plishing suitable afteruse, not only in recognition of a public duty, 
but also to the operators' economic benefit. 

Just a word about sanitary landfills. The proper disposal of the 
tremendous amounts of solid refuse generated by urban-suburban 
complexes is becoming increasingly expensive and critical. Con- 


trolled and well-supervised disposal in depleted pits can bring pit 
areas back to surrounding grade levels and can then be followed by 
building construction or recreation uses. A good example near 
Washington can be seen along the Shirley Highway in Fairfax 
County, Va., where a large operation in steel warehousing and fab- 
rication has been erected on a landfill in a depleted sand and gravel 
pit. In the Los Angeles area many sand and gravel pits are 125 feet 
deep and are still above ground water. The only feasible way to 
bring these areas back into use is through filling with refuse. Incin- 
eration of refuse is not used in this area because of air-pollution 
problems. The State of California is now conducting a research 
project in one of these deep pits at Azusa in southern California to 
investigate the effects on ground water of refuse decomposition and 
methods of control. 

I have said that many producers of construction aggregates plan 
and carry out multiple use of their land. It must be admitted that 
a great many do not. Unless these operations are in remote areas 
they can and should be required to prepare their land for afteruse 
of some sort. With something like two-thirds of all commercial sand 
and gravel operations taking place in areas subject to some form of 
local or regional planning authority, we have in existence a means 
of influencing the multiple use of aggregate-bearing lands. The 
local industry and planning authorities can outline such lands and 
protect them by regulation for a suitable number of years from 
encroachment by other uses not now in existence in those lands. 
At the same time, appropriate standards of operation setbacks, 
area screening, control of noise, dust and vibration should be en- 
acted for the protection of the public and surrounding properties, 
and compliance with such regulations can be made a condition for 
continued operation. Standards for reforming the land to appropri- 
ate afteruses can be outlined in the regulation and covered by bond- 
ing requirements. There are, over the country, a number of in- 
stances where cooperation of the industry and professional planners 
has accomplished equitable regulation conforming to a broad public 
purpose such as I have outlined. 

In 1955 when the National Sand & Gravel Association established 
a program on public relations, a significant number of member com- 
panies had already been engaged in planned reclamation as a regular 
part of their operation, some for over 30 years prior to that time. 
The Association program has concentrated on two major objectives : 


1. To persuade all operators to follow the examples of these pio- 
neering companies. 

2. To point out to the planning profession the economic necessity 
for the extraction of sand and gravel and to help them provide con- 
trols for operation and reclamation which will protect the public 
interest and with which the industry can live. 

We believe we have achieved a measure of success on both counts. 
We believe that the continuance of this program will make a con- 
tribution to the objectives of this conference. 

Representative OTTINGER. Anyone who has ever tackled the job 
of selling conservation concepts to people on a practical level, 
knows that you have one very difficult problem to overcome. The 
average person tends to regard conservation as a laudable, but 
not very practical battle of the poets and the dreamers against busi- 
nessmen and engineers. Like the golden rule, they feel that every- 
body's for it, but nobody can afford it. 

As a very practical politician, a former attorney for businessmen 
and an aspiring conservationist, I find this very frustrating. Worse, 
it is a clear indication that the important first steps toward the "new" 
conservation so eloquently advocated by the President have little 
chance of winning broad support unless we can counter this patron- 
izing attitude with facts and figures. I am convinced that the facts 
and figures can be developed and that they will support the "new" 
conservation overwhelmingly. 

I urge, therefore, that the first responsibility of each panel of this 
conference is to call for practical economic definitions. We are 
here to seek action to conserve, restore, and develop very valuable 
resources. Before we get too far along the road discussing what we 
hope to see accomplished, we had better be prepared to explain 
clearly and succinctly why it needs doing and how it will enrich the 
life and economy of the Nation. 

It is a commonplace of conservation to refer to the values of 
scenic conservation as an intangible, and impossible to measure in 
dollars and cents. I submit that this is nonsense. We simply have 
never really tried. 

For many years, planners and potential exploiters sought to use 
the land reserved in Central Park for a variety of purposes. They 
lamented the lost revenue to the city. They complained that the 
land was useless and not contributing. I would very much like 
to see the real estate values and tax revenues around Central Park 

779-595 65 ,22 


compared with those at other less beautiful points in the city. I 
would like to see a balance sheet that showed what the park has cost 
against what it has contributed to the city, just in dollar and cents 
values alone, leaving out the qualitative pleasures the park brings to 
the people who enjoy it. 

President Johnson said that beauty "is one of the most important 
components of our true national income. 53 I am sure that he is 
right. I am also sure that this can be shown, and that when it is 
shown, our job will be very much easier. 

In his natural beauty message, the President also pointed to some 
of the costs of blight. Safety and physical and mental health were 
among the factors he mentioned. I believe he might have added tax 
revenues, property values, police costs, juvenile delinquency costs, 
and some social welfare expenses, as well. The subject needs serious 
expert analysis to develop economic guidelines dollars and cents 
comparisons that will help people to see that what is good is also 

Let me cite just one other example of the sort of thing I'm looking 
for. Wouldn't it be helpful in talking about reclaiming the blight 
of abandoned open pit mines, such as the trap rock quarry in Mount 
Taurus in New York, if we could show how such blights detract from 
property values and how, and by how much, economic benefits have 
accrued to other areas from rehabilitation of landscape in similar 

Conservation discussions are traditionally conducted on such a 
high plane that such practical matters now seem a little crass. But 
we must not be ashamed to bring the discussion to this level. If we 
need to be ashamed of anything at all, it's our past failure to do so. 

When our reserves of water or helium or other valuable natural 
resources are threatened, we prepare for a campaign of conservation 
with an exhaustive economic analysis. Scenic assets are no less valu- 
able and no less jeopardized ; they deserve no less attention. 

When faced with a conflict between industrial or commercial 
demands and the demands of conservation, someone is always saying, 
"Well, you can't block progress." I want to be sure we all know 
what real progress is. 

If we are going to launch the needed programs to achieve a more 
beautiful America, we are going to have to enlist a broad popular 
support behind the banner, and high-sounding phrases alone won't 


Now there is another very practical reason for preparing an eco- 
nomic basis for our "War on Ugliness" in America. This is a gigantic 
campaign. The number of panels gathered here today is only a 
partial recognition of the size of the challenge. 

However, the conservation of our government's financial resources 
is also an important concern and, if we are to make a significant 
dent in the problem at a reasonable public cost, we must establish 
a program of priorities and assign specific responsibilities. 

I think the topic before us today, Reclamation of the Landscape, 
is a good working ground for developing such a program. In re- 
claiming landscape we are faced with a wide variety of problems. 
Some are longstanding ills like the abandoned open pit mines of 
Pennsylvania and West Virginia and the rock quarries in my own 
State. These are serious and ugly blights, and they must be rehabili- 
tated. But, they are, nonetheless, fixed historic problems whose in- 
fluence is largely static and not spreading. 

I would submit that action to correct these static blights must rest 
primarily on the State, with Federal participation only if a State is 
unwilling to undertake effective reclamation. 

This means that we will have to evolve standards of acceptable 
land use and determine the basis on which the funds will be disbursed. 
Is our concept of landscape restoration to include commercial use 
of the land? Of course, but where and how critical are the ques- 
tions, and what balance should be struck between commercial values 
and landscape values, economic and aesthetic? 

In the past we have tended to concentrate our conservation efforts 
in the wilderness. We have made significant strides in preserving 
the glories of our underdeveloped lands. Now we must turn our 
faces to conservation in our settled areas. As President Johnson 
said: "A growing population is swallowing up areas of natural 
beauty. ..." 

This is an infinitely more difficult problem with which to cope. 
Everyone could agree with saving Grand Canyon and Yellowstone 
National Parks. There were few economic interests involved and 
very little conflict. New conservation involves economic conflicts 
that go to the very heart of our modern society and the pressures 
will be tremendous. 

The President also said: "The same society which receives the 
rewards of technology, must, as a cooperating whole, take responsi- 
bility for control." I believe he has recognized that our existing 


government structure is not geared for this battle, and that we will 
need to create a new mechanism. 

The basic principle of the new conservation is the conserving and 
developing of natural resources for people as against the classical 
concept of protecting resources from people. In this light, I would 
hope that we would consider first, the restoration of landscape that 
best serves people. I would hope to see categories defined rather 
explicitly and justified in sound economic analysis. 

Where we are contemplating the creation of housing or controlled 
industrial parks, some of the necessary financial authority is avail- 
able through Housing and Home Finance Agency programs. Where 
recreation is a goal, it may be that authorization is available under 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. There are similar author- 
ties in the agricultural appropriations for soil conservation and 
reforestation. But the program that we are envisioning today even 
in the areas covered by existing legislation will eventually require 
expenditures so much greater than are now available, that the project 
appears to assume the proportions of a wholly new program. 

One very important element is not covered in many of the existing 
programs, and I think it is a key element : landscape rehabilitation 
for the economic and other human benefits that a scenic asset can 
contribute. Because we have never set an economic value on this, 
it has always been treated as a secondary issue and the results have 
been disastrous. 

Now we are at a point on which we cannot afford to be fuzzy. 
Just to get the Federal Government involved in effective action 
on this problem is going to require specific legislation. We will have 
to extend to landscape rehabilitation the same cooperative concept 
that has recently been enunciated for recreation facilities in the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund and for urban renewal in the 
Housing Act of 1965. 

To do this we will probably have to establish an authority similar 
to HHFA to review conditions of blight and evaluate State programs 
for dealing with them. I am going to suggest later some other func- 
tions of a quasi-judicial nature that such an authority should be 
granted. But at this time I am talking about the minimum neces- 
sary to deal with this specific problem of static, historic blight 
through cooperative programs with the States. 

Two difficulties with the suggestion can be met right here. First, 
we will almost certainly run into the automatic objection that many 


of the functions of an authority such as I am proposing are already 
performed to one degree or another by a wide variety of Federal 
agencies, authorities, commissions, etc. I would point out that 
this very multiplicity of responsibility in itself is one of the best rea- 
sons for establishing a single uniform authority. You need only 
to look at the results of Federal participation in State planning 
where scenic assets have been a secondary consideration to rec- 
ognize the weakness of the present system. Then, too, I would point 
out that many important scenic concerns fall into the cracks be- 
tween existing Federal programs. 

A second objection might be that the Interior Department has 
been traditionally vested with conservation responsibilities. I would 
point out that the department's interests in conservation are mani- 
fold and not always consistent with advancing scenic beauty. For 
example, the programs of the Bureau of Mines often involve balanc- 
ing scenic assets in a context weighted to other economic considera- 
tions. Wherever you are treating a subject like landscape as a sec- 
ondary consideration, you run the considerable risk that the scenic 
asset will lose. Those familiar with recent history might prefer 
to substitute "certainty" for "risk". Then, too, many of the scenic 
problems faced fall entirely outside the Interior Department's area 
of competence and under the jurisdiction of other agencies such 
as the Federal Power Commission and the U.S. Army Corps of 

Traditionally in our government, where the problem became so 
pressing and the interests so confused as those we face today, we 
have often solved our dilemma through the creation of an independ- 
ent commission. 

When the problems of trade came to require special attention, we 
established the Federal Trade Commission outside the Commerce 
Department. When there was a critical need to create power re- 
sources, we set up the Federal Power Commission outside the In- 
terior Department. We have dealt with housing, communications, 
and a variety of other problems through modifications of this concept. 
Except where these commissions have attempted to expand their 
mandate unsuitably or tried to overreach themselves, they have 
functioned superbly and have successfully dealt with problems not 
dissimilar to the problem we are facing here today. 

There is another aspect of scenic blight that is even more trouble- 
some than these historic conditions of static blight. This is the 


blight of epidemic proportions that results from industrialization, 
commercial expansion, urbanization and population movement and 
growth. Almost invariably this blight is associated with processes 
that play an important economic role in the life of people. Whether 
it is from power lines, superhighways, housing subdivisions, continu- 
ing mining operations or ill-placed industrial facilities, these threats 
to our national beauty cannot just be eliminated. More often than 
not, the problem is national in scope. Not infrequently financial 
interests too big for State governments to control are involved. In 
many cases the answer to the problem will not be immediately forth- 
coming and considerable research will be required. 

The Bureau of Mines now has a group that sets standards for the 
health and safety of miners. This resulted from public concern over 
the plight of miners. The research section of the Bureau does put 
out reports for mine operators on new techniques that would help 
with conservation of mine areas, but there is no enforcement of policy. 
Their responsibility, they say, is only to encourage rather than to set 

Again, high-tension powerlines knifing through our finest residen- 
tial areas and our scenic open spaces, destroy approximately 30 
acres for every mile of line. Scenic damage extends to as much as 
300 acres for every line mile. 

The Interior Department and the Federal Power Commission 
have been concerned about the problem, but little or no research 
has been done to compare the costs in loss of land value and added 
costs of maintenance against the costs of putting these lines under- 
ground or underwater. In fact, in a recent effort to gather material 
for constituents concerned over proposed lines, I discovered that the 
data available from these Federal agencies came almost entirely from 
an industry source that was admittedly opposed to underground lines. 
Clearly, we will get no progress here until we separate the consid- 
erable economic interests that are involved by independent review. 

To initiate and carry out the research that is necessary to meet 
problems such as this, we will need a broader and more effective 
long-range planning and national coordination effort than is now 

The practical solution would be an independent commission that 
can conduct and contract for research and can draw upon the con- 
siderable expertise and experience available at the Federal level. 
Such a commission would be charged with laying down guidelines 


and implementing national policy in rehabilitating and preserving 
the landscape. It could provide an effective mechanism to balance 
the important competing economic interests involved. 

The concept that underlies such a commission is not too far from 
that which resulted in the formation of the Resources Program staff 
of the Department of the Interior. 

But advice and consultation are not enough to meet this challenge 
and there are jobs to do that require a high degree of independent 

I have now proposed a commission charged with three important 
and interlocking functions. First, it would work on cooperative pro- 
grams with the States in correcting static scenic blight. Second, 
it would work on the national level developing better methods for 
correcting and avoiding the epidemic blight. Third, it would report 
to Congress and recommend legislation necessary to turn that re- 
search into effective action and would implement such policy as Con- 
gress prescribes. 

There is a fourth function that is equally important for such a com- 
mission and that is the quasi- judicial function of acting as fiscal arbiter 
of Federal incursions on natural beauty. 

The worst single offender against scenic resources today is the 
Federal Government itself. Through such organs of national policy 
as the Bureau of Public Roads, the Federal Power Commission, the 
General Services Administration, the Atomic Energy Commission 
and a host of others, endless violations of the American landscape 
are approved and carried out. 

The superhighways that are planned with strict attention to eco- 
nomics of motion, often ignore the economics of beauty and space. 
Power line decisions are made on the basis of the efficiency and cost 
of power alone, disregarding the cost of ruining the landscape. In 
such decisions beauty will always suffer as long as we are not able to 
set a comparable value on it, and you can hardly blame an agency 
that is charged with promoting power or highway development for 
regarding beauty as the expendable element, even where the margin 
of difference is mils. As they see it, that's their job. 

The commission I am proposing should be vested with sufficient 
force of law to guarantee that scenic resources and their implica- 
tions for health, welfare, and economics will be considered adequately 
in all Federal actions. This would include projects constructed as 
well as those licensed by Federal agencies and also projects to which 
Federal funds are applied. 


Of course, certain specialized problems will obviously require im- 
mediate action within the framework of our existing law. The 
President's Appalachian program contains much that should come 
to grips with blights such as the concentrated strip mining of that 
region has produced. For particularly neglected natural rivers 
there is the Hudson Highlands National Scenic River bill, which I 
introduced, and the Potomac program. These both involve new 
concepts of conservation that may prove helpful in the broadened 
war on ugliness. 

In providing increased Federal incentives and controls to pre- 
serve scenic values, the private sector requires particular attention. 

I am now drafting and will soon submit a National Underground 
Powerline Act which will provide significant incentives to utility 
companies to put their lines underground. It will also provide for 
research and development activities coordinated by the Department 
of the Interior. However, I would look with favor on developments 
that would enable us to transfer this function to an independent 
commission that could draw upon the experience and expertise of 
the Federal Power Commission, Interior and private companies and 
coordinate this program with other similar national conservation 

I have introduced similar legislation to give private companies an 
incentive to install anti-water pollution devices, and other pending 
legislation provides money for research and incentives for air pollu- 
tion control. 

Today, we are faced with the possible loss of valuable scenic and 
landscape resources of great economic value to our people. Once 
gone, these resources will be truly irreplaceable and in addition to 
the economic assets that will be lost, something very important will 
have gone from our American way of life. 

We have arrived at a point in our national development at which 
we need to rethink our entire approach to economic questions in- 
volving scenic values. In the 1920's and 1930's, when the industry 
of our Nation was starving for want of power, we created the Federal 
Power Commission. We vested this Commission with unusual au- 
thority to use our lands in promoting the development of power in 
the Nation. Earlier in the 1 9th century, in a much less sophisticated 
way, we did the same thing for our railroads and other utilities. The 
development of the Nation over this time is a credit to the wisdom of 
the policy and policymakers. 


Perhaps now we have even arrived at the point where we should 
consider vesting an independent commission with similar powers to 
protect and promote our valuable and vanishing scenic resources. 
Such commissions are common in other countries facing similar prob- 
lems. I well remember the lament of one of the great conservationists 
of the Hudson Valley when he heard that a beautiful scenic area 
was about to be desecrated with an ugly industrial installation. They 
told him that the government could halt this desecration only if it 
could be proved the site qualified as a national monument. 

"In France," he said, "they declare a view a national monument." 

He has a point. Our views are disappearing. Our vistas are 
being destroyed. And we are very much the poorer for it. 

If we were ever a Nation that could dig and cut and then just 
move on, we certainly are not that Nation today. 

Mr. CAUDILL. The southern Appalachians are so beautiful that 
they mask the poverty of their inhabitants. The loveliness of the 
steep hills and narrow valleys must be experienced to be appreciated. 
Tragically, their loveliness has rarely been respected by the people 
who live there or by the corporations which own the immense 
mineral wealth. 

Part of Appalachia is the Cumberland plateau, notorious for the 
destitution of its inhabitants. Until 6 or 8 years ago the 16 miles 
between Cumberland in Harlan County, Ky., and Eolia Post Office 
was an enchanting drive. U.S. Highway 119 lies parallel to the Poor 
Fork of the Cumberland, then crystal clear and dotted with deep 
fish-filled potholes. The valley is narrow. On the north lies the 
long ridge of the Pine Mountain, its crest rising craggy and pic- 
turesque. To the south is the much higher and more massive Big 
Black Mountain. This mountain contains some of the richest and 
thickest coal deposits in North America. Near Eolia Post Office, 
the Poor Fork bubbles out of the earth and starts its long journey to 
the sea. A few miles away on the other side of the Pine Mountain, 
the Kentucky and the Big Sandy Rivers have their sources, flowing 
northward to the Ohio. The Cumberland trickles westward, even- 
tually reaching the Tennessee. 

During much of the year the crest of the Big Black is veiled in 
cloud wisps. Deep hollows cut its ancient sides. Its coves and points 
were once heavily timbered. In the spring wild flowers rioted in its 
black loam. In the autumn after the first dash of frost its forests 
flamed in every color of the rainbow. The farmers who cultivated 


the sandy bottoms, the coal miners who followed the highway to 
the portals of the U.S. Coal and Coke Corp.'s mines, and the oc- 
casional traveler who wandered into the valley could feast their 
eyes on a remarkable panorama of unspoiled natural beauty. 

In the last half dozen years the valley has been shattered. A 
subsidiary of the world's biggest steel corporation decided to strip 
mine the outcrop coal in the three rich seams that striate the huge 
hill. Bulldozers, power shovels, and dynamite cut towering "high- 
walls" into the rugged slopes. The machines and explosives gouged 
and slashed the mountain for more than 20 winding miles, following 
the contour of the terrain into the deep coves and around the sharp 
points. In some places the cuts rose 90 feet straight up as high as 
a nine-story building. Like monstrous yellow serpents they looped 
themselves over the land, one near the base of the mountain, another 
mid-way up, and a third near the top. 

The rubble dislodged from the immense excavations was flung 
down the hillsides. The trees, the delicate flowers, the ancient ferns, 
the moss covered rocks the entire ecology of an ancient natural 
system was buried by avalanches of broken rock and millions of 
tons of dirt, waste coal, and shale. 

Like huge aprons these spoilbanks extend downward. Each 
hollow is filled with unstable spoil. A mining engineer has estimated 
that between 500,000 and 1 million tons of such residue were flung 
into each of the coves. Predictably, rain pelted the spoil banks and 
winter freezing and thawing loosened them. In gentle showers and 
lashing storms the dirt and the stone and the shale moved downward 
into the river bed. The crystalline creek which had sparkled for 
millennia turned yellow and turbid. The waterholes disappeared 
and were replaced with heaps of mud and stones. The banks of 
the stream turned black. 

Occasionally a mammoth landslide sent avalanches sweeping 
across a farm or into a home. Much damage was done to the city 
of Lynch when a landslide piled mud a yard deep in living rooms, on 
lawns, sidewalks, streets, and public roads. 

U.S. Coal and Coke Corp. sent its bulldozers to dredge the river. 
They pushed great accumulations of spoil out of the main channel 
and left it lying in parallel levees on either side. Thus the river, 
once the cool, pleasant habitat of some of the gamest fresh water fish 
in the world, became little more than a smooth-bottomed trough 


down which water could move quickly after each rain. The natural 
ecology of the waterway was destroyed for many miles. 

The corporation that wrought this damage made a gesture at 
reclamation. Pine seeds were scattered in some areas and in others 
tiny seedlings were planted. In some of the mining flats fescue 
seeds were scattered and some of them took root. 

But the blasted slopes lie yellow and dead. The loose dirt has 
gone downstream to silt other areas and the hollows are filled with 
the stone and the desolation. The spoilbanks are almost perpen- 
dicular because the mountain on which they lie is extremely steep, 
a fact that may rule out forever any effective effort at reclamation. 
To reclaim the spoilbanks the slopes must be kept in situ until vege- 
tation can be caused to grow, and in a region with nearly 50 inches 
of rainfall annually such retention of the soil cannot occur. It is 
as though loose dirt was placed on the sloping side of a tin roof and 
expected somehow to remain there under the pelting rains until 
vegetation could take root. 

Thousands of people have been horrified by the spectacle of this 
blighted valley. The corporation which extracted the coal has 
reaped a bumper harvest of public ill will. In my opinion, the 
board of directors who authorized this act committed a major offense 
against America. If a man loves America the Beautiful and sees 
this wrecked and ravaged land, the gouged-out creekbed, this fishless 
stream, he must feel revulsion for the recklessness, the greed, and the 
barbarity of an industrial manager who would wreck a valley for 
a bit of cheap fuel. 

I cannot believe these men to be wicked, but their folly, their 
cupidity, their disregard for natural beauty is monumentalized by 
the mountain they killed. Soon the Applachian development pro- 
gram will reconstruct U.S. 1 19 as a major north-south highway and 
countless tourists travelling between Florida and the Great Lakes 
will pass their monument. Most of them will blame a great corpo- 
ration for the despoliation of this lovely corner of America. 

The point here is that, whatever the situation may be in the flat 
coalfields of America, strip mining on steep mountainous terrain is 
wholly inconsistent with the preservation of natural beauty and the 
natural balance of life. Restoration to anything approaching the 
original situation is out of the question. The land is too steep, the 
rainfall is too heavy, the spoil is too unstable for real reclamation 
to occur. If the land is to be preserved, if the natural beauty is to 


survive, reclamation must occur in advance, simply by prohibiting 
the ruin. Government can enforce such prohibition, or an enlight- 
ened business community including the men and corporations 
which own the minerals can resort to other methods of extraction. 

If necessary, they can wait until new techniques make possible 
their recovery by means which permit the continued usefulness of 
the land. Our affluent society should not be so hungry for cheap 
fuel as to purchase it at a cost so dear. 

Whether the Appalachian coalfields will be preserved in their 
ancient natural splendor for the enjoyment of many generations 
of Americans yet unborn or reduced within the coming generation 
to a wasteland is a question that addresses itself to this conference. 
It addresses itself to the boardrooms of scores of great corporations 
and the consciences of American shareholders. The conventional 
working of economic and corporate decisions provides a momentum 
far too big to be matched by local county governments or even 
State statutes. Only a national conscience and a Federal strength 
of purpose can effectively meet the issue. And as the destruction 
spreads across Appalachia, the hills, the hollows, the streams, the 
fish, and the wildlife of the yet unravaged lands await the answer. 
And the future will judge the answer as long as there is an America. 

Mr. MOTT. I believe that each of you recognize in the comments 
made by the various panelists the problems that exist and you were 
told of several solutions : local tree planting through civic conscience 
of the people living in the area ; of total government control as prac- 
ticed in the United Kingdom; industry recognizing the problem 
and developing ideas and setting up criteria for its members to fol- 
low; Federal, State, and local cooperation in solving the problem, 
and Federal leadership and research. 

These are some of the solutions for solving this complicated prob- 
lem. We are dealing with an industry that is essential to the economy 
of the United States, but I am convinced that there must be and 
will be solutions to this problem. 

Questions and Discussion 

Mr. DAVISON. Mr. Collins, you said that reclamation costs now 
are averaging in the neighborhood of $1 a ton. Do you have any 
idea what percentage of the pithead price of coal that would be in 
the United Kingdom, as an average? 


Mr. COLLINS. One-tenth of the price. 

Mr. PYLES. Mr. Collins is here from the British Isles. We might 
ask him some more questions. Why in the United Kingdom do 
you strip for coal ? Why don't you deep mine altogether? 

Mr. COLLINS. Strip mining of coal relatively near the surface is 
far more economical than deep mining. It is as simple as that. 

STEPHEN COLBY. First, Dr. Bramble suggests empirical observa- 
tions in the field constitute an in-depth study; this is not true. Em- 
pirical observation is only the first step in a long series of steps for 
in-depth studies. Much further thought is needed to describe in- 
depth study. 

Second, in regards to Route 119 and other highways, at least in 
terms of recreational values one can move a highway or use cos- 
metic measures to control undesirable scenery. 

Third, if, when stressing recreation and not pollution control 
values, the spoil banks are not necessarily unsightly if they are prop- 
erly planted. In southern Illinois, the spoil banks, on which trees 
and other things are planted, constitute some of our most interesting 
landscapes. In some areas, such as central Illinois, the barren spoil 
banks (by creating contrasting scenery to the beautiful monotony of 
the cornfields) can represent a highly desirable and interesting feature 
of the landscape. 

Fourth, rehabilitation of the landscape should not be limited to 
coal mines but should include other works of man; such as gas sta- 
tions, restaurants, motels, billboards, and any other unsightly blemish 
to the landscape. 

Fifth, with proper planning and by describing what has been done 
and what is to be done to return the scenic resource to the production 
of beauty, an explanational turnout and overlook can partially allevi- 
ate the unfavorable impact of unsightly scars caused in resource de- 
velopment such as forest clearcutting and mine spoil banks. 

Sixth, for the Congressman, I have one suggestion. Any Federal 
spending program should not penalize State, local, and private agen- 
cies that undertook initiatory compliance (to place a program in 
operation with non-Federal funds before the Federal Government 
originates its program) by making grants to those communities 
who are not foresighted. 

For example, Chicago has the best sanitary district anywhere in 
the world primarily financed through local funds, as are those in 


many other cities and towns. Yet, I understand the Federal Govern- 
ment is subsidizing sanitation programs for areas like Huntington, 
W. Va., and Milwaukee, Wis., that have been notorious in polluting 
our streams and lakes without regard for the well-being of others. 

Mr. PYLES. One brief comment. By a study in depth, I mean 
a team study which would be set up in each State which would be 
composed of engineers, soil scientists, hydrologists, foresters, or ecolo- 
gists. We proposed such a study in Indiana. The administration 
opposed it this year, and it was not approved by the legislature. 

KENNETH L. SCHELLIE. I would like to refer to comments Mr. 
Davison made about the work being done by the sand and gravel 
producers. They have created, as many of you know, some very 
fine reclamation projects which have produced some of the finest 
recreational areas in the country, many of them water-oriented. I 
would also like to point out that the increasing difficulties of opening 
up new extractive pits in our metropolitan centers has created some 
serious problems for the industry. 

It has occurred to us that there appeared to be a common ground, 
whereby the need for outdoor recreation space, open space, active 
recreation use space, and the needs of industry in producing sand and 
gravel close to their markets create a common situation of interest, 
both to the industry, the Nation, and to the people interested in 

Therefore, we have entered into some discussions with the Bu- 
reau of Outdoor Recreation regarding a program which will be un- 
dertaken jointly by the industry and the Bureau to encourage this type 
of operation at urban centers, meeting the growing metropolitan 
need of America, both from the standpoint of a building material 
and the need for more recreation space at those locations. 

MAURICE BARB ASH. I would like to address myself to a problem 
we have had in Long Island for the past few months, where a major 
sand and gravel concern attempted to win approval for a mining 
project along one of the most beautiful bluffs overlooking Long 
Island Sound, in the Wading River area of the north shore of Long 
Island. The proposal was made then, as has been made by Mr. 
Davison, Mr. Collins, and other speakers, that the result might be 
better than the product that nature gave us today. 

I have heard this proposal made in many other industrial devel- 
opments, including the one in an area up on the Hudson River. 


I am very disturbed by all the signs that lead to landscaping being 
restored. Aren't we going to have any of the original landscaping 
that we have right now? I think it may be high time that the asso- 
ciation of sand and gravel firms and the power companies make 
their own studies as to what natural resources and features we have 
in this country that should be out of their domain for operation. I 
think we have to leave some of the original landscaping that we have 
today. I know that we cannot possibly restore it, once we have 
used it, to the former beauty it had. 

STEPHEN DUNN. We represent and speak for the commercial 
producers and not the captive producers of the industry, such as the 
steel companies. I would like these proceedings to show the con- 
structive attitude taken by the bituminous coal industry. They have 
worked in this field for many years, not only with skilled technicians 
of National Coal but through our new research laboratory near 
Pittsburgh, the bituminous coal research center, in seeing the need 
for intensifying these efforts to keep up with the times. Recently 
a new organization was formed, closely associated with us, known as 
the Mined-Land Conservation Conference, of which Mr. Arnold 
Lamm is the president. 

We enjoy working with government agencies and with local 
groups. This has a top priority in our forthcoming 48th anniversary 
convention program, and there will be top panelists on this in Chi- 
cago, June 13 to 15. 

You are all most cordially invited to attend that session. 

We have just completed a very important symposium on water 
pollution, sponsored by Mellon Institute, our affiliate, Bituminous 
Coal Research, and others, and we are working continuously with 
land and water use committees and others. 

I might say also, we have a new film which shows the work done 
in the field of reclamation. It is called "Invisible Power of Coal." 
We hope those interested will see it. 

A number of very constructive comments have been made by 
panel members. You, Mr. Chairman, have pointed out the great 
need economically for these industries that are affected. Mr. Pyles 
has mentioned the good work done by industry. Dr. Bramble has 
pointed out the need for State action and the difficulty of having 
a uniform Federal law, and how general Federal regulation might 
be impractical or impossible. 


Mr. Stocker certainly has brought out what can be done by private 
enterprise. This is where we want to intensify our effort. Our good 
friend, Mr. Collins, whom we know very well, has pointed out very 
wisely the difference in the factual situation. 

ARNOLD E. LAMM. I think panels such as this are very construc- 
tive. I think that none of us believe the problem is simple. It is a 
very complicated problem, and I think that the help of you gentle- 
men in solving these problems is much to be sought after by the 
industry. I simply want to explain some of the objectives of the 
Mined-Land Conservation Conference. 

First of all, we have a voluntary problem of reclamation of land, 
which is very extensive. The program is supplemented by a staff 
of experts, a technical committee, consisting of ecologists, chemists, 
soil experts, people who have been in the land reclamation business 
for upward of as much as 40 years, some of them. 

Secondly, another purpose of the Mined-Land Conservation Con- 
ference is to sponsor intelligent legislation on the part of the States 
to solve this problem. We do believe that there are great problems 
to Federal legislation, because there are such different objections in- 
volved, as Mr. Caudill has pointed out. You have a far different 
situation in the plains of Kansas than you have in the mountains of 
West Virginia. But we do sponsor intelligent State legislation. 
We aid and assist those companies that are financially unable to get 
technical assistance. 

I want to thank the members of the panel for throwing a great 
deal of light on a very complicated and technical subject. 

Mr. MOTT. It is my understanding that of the 27 States that are 
doing surface mining, 7 of them have legislation that in one way or 
another affects rehabilitation. Some of the States use their laws 
effectively; in other cases the legislation is there, but it is not effec- 
tively used or implemented. 

Dr. M. GRAHAM NETTING. A great deal of very fine work is being 
done throughout the country in restoration. I have no intention 
of criticizing that. But I have gone to a good many meetings and 
I have heard people talk about revegetation of spoil banks, who, I 
am certain, have never sat on a spoil bank on a hot July day. 

Much of the planting of tree seedlings by Boy Scouts, by people 
of good will, is excellent exercise for planters, but unsuccessful be- 
cause of the species provided. You know that spruces like cool, moist 


conditions. Think of the little spruce tree that is put on one of 
these hot spoil banks. In ten years, it may be 18 inches high. And 
most of this planting by the way of evergreens is done in a deciduous 
forest climate where the large-tooth aspen and the black locust may 
grow 10 feet from seed in two years. 

I would like to suggest that the people who are doing research on 
revegetation take a lead from the highway engineers and blow mix- 
tures of fertilizer, of seed, particularly of deciduous trees, straw and 
hay on the spoil banks. If a lady gets her shoulders sun burned, 
she doesn't put a few beauty patches on them. She covers up the 
hot hide. The important thing is to get a fast cover on the hot spoil 
banks and then the trees will grow beautifully thereafter. Think of 
a spoil surface as a desert environment. 

Mrs. CONNIE QUINN. We have a strip mining law which I under- 
stand is the most strict or the second most strict in the United States. 
And I believe it is being effectively carried out. We also have what 
is considered one of the world's largest shovels in our western Ken- 
tucky coalfield, and I would like to suggest that the panel make some 
type of recommendation to control the type of equipment that is be- 
ing made to use in these strip mining areas. I understand that the 
firm that has the shovel is now planning one larger than the one it 
has now, where it can go in and disturb more acres of coal in one day 
than hundreds of men can do in a month. 

I would like to ask Mr. Stocker the question about his planting 
program on highway screening. Were the trees planted and given 
by the State? Did they grow their own trees in their own nursery 
or were they bought from private individuals? 

Mr. STOCKER. These were bought by our company. 

Mrs. QUINN. I would like to find such an angel in Kentucky. 

MARTIN HANSON. I would like to put a question to Mr. Caudill. 
My city, Mellen, Wis., lies in a valley between two ancient moun- 
tain ranges. To the south is the Goegebic iron range, which is con- 
trolled by one of our largest steel corporations. The hill and moun- 
tains directly south of Mellen have been described as one of the out- 
standing ski hill and recreational opportunities in all of the Midwest. 

Next week a vice president of this company is coming to our 
town and our valley. The same thing will happen that has hap- 
pened to your valley. What should we do about it? 

779-59565 23 


I would like to further comment that our local people, because of 
the economic impact, jobs and such, refuse to do anything, and our 
State government has just failed to act. So my question is, what 
can be done? 

Mr. CAUDILL. Well, if I had the answer, I would be a rich man, 
but I think the answer will have to be as distasteful as this may 
seem to a great many people at the Federal level. This is a great 
Federal problem. The people who are pauperized in the process of 
land destruction frequently wind up on the public welfare rolls, and 
that is Federal. The mud moves in interstate streams, and that is 
Federal. And there is simply lacking, at the local level in a great 
many areas, the necessary land ethic to achieve effective action at 
the local level or even at the State level, and I can see no real hope 
for this kind of situation until the land ethic, if there is one, is brought 
to bear in these communities. That must be, in my opinion, the 
role of the Federal Government, in one form or another. 

LARRY COOK. My job is reclaiming strip mine land, and it has 
been for the last 20 years. 

I want to pay tribute to the U.S. Forest Service, particularly, in 
my area, through the Central States Forest Experiment Station and 
to the Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, to Ohio State Univer- 
sity, and Kent State University, and to all of the agencies that have 
worked with us to find the answers to the reclamation of strip mine 

I think we have a lot of the answers. I cannot be on the defensive 
here today, because I can show you thousands of acres of beautiful 
reclaimed strip mine land. 

Unfortunately, we have about 10,000 additional acres every 
year. No matter how much we reclaim today, there will be more 
to be reclaimed tomorrow. 

Mr. Mott, I agree with you that man, in his genius, has constructed 
some tremendous equipment 210-ton shovels but he has not dis- 
covered how to grow trees faster. 

This is a problem time. If we have the time and the money, 
we can properly reclaim strip mined land. 

Mr. MOTT. The public feels that this is an urgent problem and 
that we must get on with solutions as rapidly as possible. Maybe we 
should be doing research on how to produce trees that will grow 


faster than we have ever grown them before. I don't think time is 
going to wait for us. We will have to move faster. 

Mr. COOK. I hope, in order to obtain beauty in a short time, we 
do not throw away the value that lies in these lands that a little time 
will enable us to realize. We can reclaim these lands to tremendous 
value as well as beauty if we are given sufficient time to accomplish it. 

WILLIAM VOIGT, JR. One comment, and then one question, if 
I may : It was ten years ago, Mr. Pyles, this month, that we spent a 
month in the Ohio country that Larry Cook just talked about, looking 
over some well reclaimed land, and some that was not well reclaimed. 

I feel that we should consider soil textures, local soil and climatic 
conditions, as Dr. Netting was saying, when we go in to do the 
reclaiming job. But the big problem and the question that I would 
like to put has to do with the areas that have been disturbed in 
years past by operators who are long dead or departed. I believe 
it was a fellow countryman of yours, who some 300-odd years ago 
in a book called "The Gompleat Angler," wrote, "What is every- 
body's business is nobody's business." 

What are we going to do about this nonreclaimed land, unre- 
claimed land that is now everybody's business? 

Mr. MOTT. Our panel has discussed this problem in its work 
sessions quite extensively, and we recognize that the abandoned 
or orphaned land presents a special problem. We will make a specific 
recommendation with regard to action that should be taken in re- 
habilitating orphan or abandoned coal mine areas. We believe the 
recommendation makes sense and we will present it at the general 

GEORGE SELKE. We have just gone through a series of experiences 
in two States, and I would like to call your attention to them. They 
deal with the matter of reclamation. I wonder what we are going to 
do when nature begins to destroy some of the beauty of the land be- 
cause of some indirect acts of man. I sometimes think that nature 
does this without any help of mankind. I am thinking of the floods 
of the Missouri and the floods of the Willamette and the Columbia 
as well as the hurricane of 1962, and so on. 

Mr. PYLES. I suggest one solution is to keep the towns and in- 
dustries out of the flood plains. That would be the easiest way. 


Mr. SELKE. That doesn't solve the problem for the others in the 

Mrs. RALPH CURTIS SMITH. We have a problem that I would ap- 
preciate some information on. We have a well-established retail 
coal company in the city, right in the center of the city. We have a 
great deal of coal-dust that emanates from this coal plant. What 
kind of wetting compound is there that is practical? 

Mr. COLLINS. I can say that the wetting of coal dust is a very 
difficult problem. Chemical wetting agents are available but ex- 
pensive and not very efficient. Probably the best way of dealing 
with the dust nuisance is to have adequate water sprays as near to 
the source of the dust as possible. 

DAVTD BROWER. I think we are concerned quite a bit about the 
efficiency of coal mining, because we would rather see, for example, 
coal used for power than dams in Grand Canyon. But we are also 
mindful of the kind of reclamation that took place in some of our 
own California land, where a century ago, we took the gold out. 
The only way we reclaimed the spoil piles was to expand suburbia 
over them, beyond Sacramento, toward the Sierra Nevada. 

In this kind of struggle, there is a mining operation that goes on in 
our redwood country. The soil slips down in the canyons. There is 
no reclamation yet attempted there. 

We wonder sometimes what chance there is to tell the public 
what its choice is before the step is made. Before we take red- 
woods off the slope and let the slope deteriorate, how much more 
would we have to pay for the redwood in order to have a good slope 
left? Before we go ahead and disrupt a piece of land with strip 
mining for coal, how much more would we have to pay per kilowatt- 
hour of energy, if it is going into power? How much would we have 
to pay for a pound of steel going into the heavy machinery needed 
to put the soil back where we can and replant on it according to the 
best instructions of Mr. Netting? 

The public often doesn't get the choice to leave the land unspoiled 
and pay the extra cost for mining. Where we do mine, should we 
restore and put that in the price, or should we just let it lie and have 
it as a perpetual and long-lasting eyesore? I think this panel should 
recommend something about this, to make sure the public sees what 
the choices are. 


L. E. SAWYER. My work for the past 21 years has been almost 
exclusively confined to reclamation, principally in the State of 

I think the members of the panel have brought out very graph- 
ically the extreme variation in the different parts of the country 
in mining and in the reclamation problem. We have had a definite 
program of reclamation in Indiana since 1926. As a result of that 
program, less than 5 percent of the land that has been disturbed by 
mining has not been reclaimed. That is a natural lag. We have 
to let the ground settle. Nature requires time to break down the rock 
and shale before we have a planting site. We know what to plant. 
We are not planting spruce, as the man said. We have adapted our 
species to the different sites that we are dealing with. We can't 
apply the same practice throughout the State. We are confined 
only to the southwestern corner of the State. We have to use dif- 
ferent mixtures on different sites. 

The same thing applies in many parts of west Kentucky, with 
which I am familiar, and in Illinois. It is impossible to apply the 
same law and same practices uniformly over the entire State. They 
need to be tailored to fit the type of material you are dealing with, 
whether it be material that can be restored to agricultural use or 
whether it is land that should be reforested or land that should be 
developed for homesites. 

I would like to assure you homesites in Indiana are selling today 
for more than the companies paid for the land when it had the coal 
underneath. It is simply because we have nice bodies of water. 
People are crazy for water and they are paying fantastic prices for 
that land. 

Dr. STEPHEN SPURR. I think it is obvious to all of us, but the 
record should show, I think, that the elements of the landscape should 
include more than the topography and the soil : They should include 
the vegetation, the forests, the water, and the structures raised by 
man. Although this panel has concentrated upon the very impor- 
tant part of the reclamation of disturbed land, I think that the topic 
is sufficiently broad that we should recognize that there are equally 
serious and in many cases much larger areas which call for the 
restoration of vegetation that has been destroyed by fire, by over- 
grazing, or by overcutting; which call for the restoration of water 
bodies, whether rivers, ponds, or lakes, that have been destroyed 
by mismanagement; and the restoration of the ravages of human 


structures that are no longer needed, that are antiquated and that 
can be removed. These are also part of the elements of the coun- 
tryside, and they should, sooner or later, deserve attention equal 
to that given the important topic of this panel. 

IRVING LIKE. I have a question for those members of the panel 
that represent industry. 

Where you have a reclamation problem of the first magnitude and 
where private industry, local initiative, or State government is un- 
able or unwilling to act within a reasonable period of time, are you 
willing to accept the proposition that there be legislation enabling 
the Federal Government to act as a guarantor of performance? 

Mr. DAVIS ON. I am not sure I understand what you propose. 

Mr. MOTT. I believe he is saying that if private industry doesn't 
carry out this major reclamation program, the Federal Government 
should do so. Is this what you said? 

Mr. LIKE. The point is that Federal power will be available 
and provided for in the legislation to be exercised within a reason- 
able period of time in local situations where local initiative does 
not carry out the same objective. 

Mr. PYLES. Under effective State laws, the State has police power. 
It can require bonds, which amount to sometimes $1,000 an acre 
or more. The States also have other police power. Every strip min- 
ing operation in the five leading States must be licensed, and these 
licenses must be renewed each year. I don't know about New York 
State, whether this is the operation you have in mind. But the 
States have the power; the Federal Government doesn't exercise it. 

Representative OTTINGER. I think we were agreed, though, there 
have been some cases where interests were involved that were so 
great that the State couldn't adequately cope with them. There are 
situations in which Federal standards should be established. 

I certainly very strongly subscribe to that view. I think you have 
to have some mechanism sufficiently flexible to meet different situa- 
tions in different States; that we have a vehicle available along the 
lines of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, where the Federal 
Government would lay down certain basic standards and the States 
would come in with specific programs to meet those standards. 


BENJAMIN LINSKY. Two points: One, a comment, emphasizing 
the point that was brought up before by one of the members of the 
audience. In flatland areas such as Detroit where I grew up, it 
may be of value to develop and reclaim quarries and instead of 
stopping at grade, going up and developing some hills which would 
have scenic value as picnic areas. 

Something comparable has already been done, at Rouge Park, 
where a solid toboggan slide is built of rubbish and makes a nice 
picnic hill in the summer. 

The second point, I think, came out of the audience response to 
your panel. The economic choices, as to the costs, ought to be 
presented much more often in terms that are realistic to the con- 
sumer, such as the added amount on your electricity bill, for the 
average family per month. Added cost-per-ton of coal for cleaner 
air or restored mining surface means nothing to him; he cannot trans- 
late it without a good deal of instruction or research. 

Statements Submitted for the Record 

SAUL B. COHEN. I suggest that the panel consider recommending 
the establishment of a National Spoil Reclamation Bank, to grapple 
in a bold and imaginative way with the major problem of coal spoils 
and other mine tailings. Punitive measures in State codes that levy 
fines are inadequate to the task. In West Virginia, fines of $25 per 
acre are hardly a deterrent to the owner, when spoil reclamation may 
cost $250 per acre. A Federally sponsored and funded Spoil Bank, 
organized to match owners' reclamation investments (which, in turn, 
can be provided with tax benefits), seems to offer the strongest and 
perhaps the only assurance of solving this aspect of the rural land- 
scape reclamation problem. 

MILO W. HOISVEEN. Criteria regarding the leveling of spoil banks 
and abandoned channels created through the construction of drain- 
age canals and river channel changes have improved greatly in recent 

It can be further improved to remove ugliness. Areas where spoil 
piles exist should be leveled to blend in with the topography of the 
existing land which will permit seeding to useful purposes and thereby 
eliminate a noxious weed problem area. Channel straightening has 
in many instances been a necessary adjunct to eliminate floods ; how- 
ever, in many instances the abandoned segments of the channels have 


not been leveled which generally leaves a mosquito-infested bog 
which is usually most unsightly. 

Agencies affiliated with the State and Federal governments respon- 
sible for such construction should be urged to take immediate steps to 
establish criteria to improve construction in this regard. They 
should also care for such past performances on a retroactive basis 
where such work has been performed as a part of their responsibility. 

ARNOLD E. LAMM.* Adequate provision was not made for repre- 
sentation by the surface coal mining industry at the panel discus- 
sions during the White House Conference on Natural Beauty, par- 
ticularly since most of the emphasis in the discussions on land rec- 
lamation was directed toward reclamation of the strip mine areas. 

In the hope that we may be able to have our side of the story 
heard and included in the conference report to the President, we 
submit the following statement: 

All parties must recognize that the coal mining industry, including 
the surface mines, is an essential contributor to our economy. Low- 
cost surface mined coal in most cases fuels the electric generation 
which has provided this country with its greatest competitive advan- 
tage over the low labor cost competitors from other areas. 

Dr. Julian W. Feiss of the Department of the Interior, in a paper 
before the Council of State Governments on April 13, 1964, said 
"Mining in one form or another has existed for many thousands 
of years and will continue to exist as long as man occupies this 
planet." At another point in this same address, Dr. Feiss said with 
respect to coal mining, "If it is necessary to strip off 60 feet of rock 
or overburden to reach a 5 -foot seam of coal, this overburden is 
waste. There are times when it is advisable to return the waste to 
the excavation; there are other times when this is difficult." 

The surface coal mining industry has long recognized the need 
for reclamation of mined land. In fact, the first reclamation projects 
were inaugurated more than 40 years ago. Since that time thou- 
sands and thousands of acres of marginal land have been mined and 
then converted into multiple-use land, the value of which is many 
dollars greater than the original land. 

The problem of land reclamation in the coal industry is magnified 
out of all proportion to its true relation in the natural resource picture. 
The Tennessee Valley Authority, in a publication issued in 1963, 

*This is an extension of the remarks made by Mr. Lamm during the panel 


pointed out that the total land area of the 22 States in which surface 
mining is carried on is 770,747,000 acres. Of this total, according 
to TV A, only slightly more than 500,000 acres have been disturbed 
by surface mining operations. This represents only 65/100 of 1 per- 
cent of the total land area of these States. By comparison, in these 
same 22 States, the total acreage affected by highway construction 
was 25,976,000 acres or more than 50 times the surface area disturbed 
by mining. Whereas little of the land disturbed by mining was pro- 
ductive agricultural land, a great share of the land converted to 
highway construction had previously been agricultural land. 

In the same vein, the Department of Agriculture has estimated 
that of all the area devoted to crop production, 1,382,000,000 
acres are in need of immediate conservation treatment. This is 
almost twice the total land area of the 22 States in which surface 
mining is practiced. Yet a great percentage of the publicity and 
criticism is directed to the surface mining industry and little or 
nothing is said about the highway areas or the farming areas that 
are in greater need of reclamation attention. 

Despite the insignificant effect on total land area, the surface min- 
ing industry has not minimized its efforts to develop effective and 
efficient programs of land reclamation in the mining areas. A great 
deal of time and money has been expended by the industry in develop- 
ing and expanding its reclamation programs on a voluntary basis. 
Studies and research by the industry and by cooperating Federal 
and State agencies have continued to improve the types of reclama- 
tion practices employed. 

Through the Mined-Land Conservation Conference, a voluntary 
organization of the responsible surface mining companies in the 
United States, a code of practices has been subscribed to by the 
members of the MLCC, which among other things provides for 
the following: 

The reclamation of all land affected by the mining operation is 
the responsibility of each operator. 

Restoration of mined land to its most practical and productive 
use within the shortest possible time is basic to a sound conserva- 
tion program. 

All mined land should be seeded or planted to produce vegetative 
cover as soon after mining as practical. 

Mined land should be devoted to the highest and best possible 
uses compatible with the uses of adjoining land. 


Reclamation of mined land, including planting to grass or trees 
should be done on a planned basis under technical guidance of 
personnel trained in this field. 

Reclamation programs should be carried out so that the final use 
of the land will not appreciably reduce the taxable value of the land 
below the valuation which the land carried before mining opera- 
tions commenced. 

Mine owners should not be content with a minimum of reclama- 
tion. They should encourage voluntary participation in sound 
reclamation practices by all operators in their areas. 

The surface mine industry believes that where regulation is de- 
sirable, it should be the responsibility of the State or local agencies. 
This thinking results from the practicable knowledge that conditions 
of the land subject to reclamation are so varied that no single formula 
can be established. Endorsing this contention, the Tennessee Valley 
Authority said : 

No two strip mines are the same and rarely are two parts of the 
same mine identical. The proportions of stone and soil vary greatly, 
and for any particular spot, the proportions change with weathering 
and erosion. Acidity varies sharply within short distances. 

We feel that conscientious effort is being made by the industry to 
prosecute a progressive and productive program of land reclamation. 
Great forward steps have been taken; however, much more is in the 
future. It should be realized that in many cases of complaint of 
denuded soils hi surface mining operations, the time element required 
for the weathering process to make land suitable for vegetation 
causes the barren appearance. However, this will be rectified within 
a short time to produce verdant growth in most cases. 

On the subject of reclamation of strip mine banks, the Department 
of Agriculture, in one of its recent reports, states : 

Most authorities advise delay of planting until the banks have 
settled and severe erosion has had a chance to run its course. 

The surface coal mining industry accepts and honors its responsi- 
bility for the reclamation of the lands mined. The industry has 
proven by past accomplishments that it is capable of solving this prob- 
lem and affecting a result that will be a credit to the industry, to the 
communities and in consonance with the aims and purposes of the 
White House Conference on Natural Beauty. We only ask that in 
carrying forward this program our work be appraised and judged 


fairly and accurately by all segments of the population government 
agencies, the press, and the general public. 

ELDRIDGE LOVELACE. Preservation of natural beauty must start 
with a reverence for land. When mistreated, the land fights back 
with results that are more than ugliness. Mud in the canyons of 
Los Angeles is one example. Rampant erosion that occurs in the 
Peoria area whenever the vegetative cover is removed from steep 
slopes of sandy, gravelly soil is another. There are hundreds of 
examples around every growing city. 

By zoning we regulate what goes on the land. Why could we not 
regulate what is done with the land and require that land be treated 
reverently, carefully and judiciously? While they would vary from 
community to community, it is possible to set forth standards for the 
preservation of native plant material, for the intensity and character 
of urban use in relation to land slopes and to the character of existing 
tree growth. The bulldozer approach to urban expansion could be 
straightforwardly prohibited by local law. There is no reason why 
an individual should be allowed to destroy ground forms, plant 
growth, or wildlife on his property whether he builds anything on it 
or not. Some areas such as very steep slopes, drainage courses, and 
flood plains should not be built upon at all. Where an absolutely 
essential project has to disturb the landscape the regulations could 
specify the restorative measures to be put into effect. 

Model ordinances to accomplish these purposes should be pre- 
pared under the sponsorship of the HHFA with assistance of com- 
mittees formed for this purpose from the American Society of Civil 
Engineers, the American Society of Landscape Architects, and the 
American Bar Association. Successful enactment and enforcement 
of such legislation in a few communities on an experimental basis 
could then be followed by requiring it as part of a workable pro- 
gram that should be the prerequisite for Federal grants. 

A few decades ago minimum standard housing regulations were 
almost unknown. Now they are commonplace. "Reverence for 
Land" regulations could have a similar history and bring an even 
greater benefit. Prevention of misuse of land would be preferable to 
the expensive and frustrating experience of trying to correct the mis- 
takes later on. Surely there is more than enough public interest 
involved and a significantly great effect on the public welfare to 
warrant the extension of the police power into this field. 



3:30 p.m., Monday, May 24 

The Chairman Mr. CISLER. In our deliberations prior to our 
meeting this afternoon, we decided to divide our panel presentations 
in order to recognize the marked distinction between overhead and 
underground installations in relation to low voltage and high voltage; 
the responsibilities of various regulatory bodies ; the participation of 
the equipment manufacturers in the subject; the matter of high- 
voltage transmission, which is quite a different matter than that for 
low-voltage distributions and service installations; and finally, the 
need for long-range planning, which to me is very important, indeed. 

We must make the distinction between overhead installations of 
the low-voltage distribution circuits and the underground circuits 
specifically serving the same purpose. There is a great distinction 
between these and circuits which are for high-voltage transmission, 
both overhead and underground, which have an entirely different 
purpose, and which are governed by entirely different techniques and 
technology, economics, and other matters. 

Mr. NELSON. A revolutionary change has taken place in the pat- 
tern of installation of low-voltage electric distribution lines during 
the last few years. Not all of us in the industry, and certainly few 
people outside it, are aware of the extent of this change or its sig- 
nificance. I think I can best illustrate what is happening by using 
as an example my own city of Los Angeles. 

Members of the Panel on The Underground Installation of Util- 
ities were William M. Bennett, Walker L. Cisler (Chairman), John 
Dyckman, Ludwig F. Lischer, Rod J. McMullin, Samuel B. Nelson, 
Joseph C. Swidler, and George L. Wilcox. Staff Associate was Ted 



In 1962 only about 20 percent of new residences were served from 
underground facilities. By 1964 this had increased to almost 50 
percent and by the end of this year it will undoubtedly exceed 60 
percent. The change in the pattern of service to new residential 
subdivisions has been even more spectacular. In 1962 less than 10 
percent of all new subdivisions were served underground. Right 
now 60 percent are going in underground, and by the early 1970's, 
this should approach 1 00 percent. 

A similar trend, although not so radical, has been experienced in 
other phases of our distribution system. 

The reduction in cost of underground as much as 60 percent 
in some areas has been a great factor in making this change pos- 
sible. The primary motivation, however, which started this revolu- 
tion and has maintained its momentum, is the increasing desire of 
people to raise the standard of beauty of their own environment. 

I have painted a very rosy picture and one that is surely consistent 
with the purpose of this meeting in Washington. This raises in 
your mind, as it has in mine, a very logical question and that is: 
if all of this underground is going in, how does it happen that we still 
see on the face of America so many poles and wires? 

In the answer to this question lies the two major problems, which 
we are faced with. 

1. The improvement of the appearance of overhead lines where 
underground can't do the job, because of load density, topography, 
soil condition, or other factors. In other words, improving the 
appearance of those facilities that must go overhead now in this in- 
terim period. 

2. The conversion of existing overhead systems to underground. 
Much progress has been made on the first of these problems, as 

a result of a comprehensive program of research and development 
involving the manufacturing as well as the utility segment of our 
industry. New materials and methods have made outstanding con- 
tributions to the aesthetic impact of these essential overhead facilities. 
Examples of these are metal poles of graceful design, without cross- 
arms, serving the dual function of street lighting and distribution 
with service wires underground; light-colored poles without cross- 
arms and with bare wires on side-mounted insulators; low silhouette 
designs deliberately planned to blend with the background of trees 
and buildings. 

In the west we are acutely aware of this problem and are actively 
working on methods of solving it. 


Late last year a Utilities Appearance Committee was organized 
by 24 utilities in five western States. This committee is coordinat- 
ing the approaches and proposed solutions of all participating utili- 
ties in an effort to arrive at standardization of designs which are 
both aesthetically and economically sound. 

The problem of converting existing overhead districts to under- 
ground is a more difficult one to solve. Circumstances vary widely. 
In the older areas, absentee ownership and low income result in a 
general lack of interest in the aesthetic aspect. Left alone, the con- 
version would probably come about automatically due to change in 
land use. This could take many years, and I'm not sure it's the best 
answer. It seems to me the solution in these areas requires the co- 
operative effort of the property owners, the community, and the 
utility. It may well be that more flexible improvement district regu- 
lations are also indicated. 

In other less depressed areas, the solution should be easier, but 
even here, despite an active program on the part of the utility, very 
little conversion has been made. Perhaps here, too, more flexibility 
in the formation of improvement districts would help. 

I might make a comment on an article which appeared in the 
May issue of Public Power, which told about an experience that 
the Sacramento Municipal Utility has had on new subdivisions. 
They offered the underground facilities, over an 18-month period, 
at no extra cost to subdividers and their experience was so good that 
they have extended this for another 1 2 months. 

The situation is different in different parts of the country, and this 
is only one utility which has stepped forward and actually provided 
the underground installations at no extra cost. The general prac- 
tice is to have the subdivider pay for the difference in the cost of over- 
head over the cost of underground, and this cost varies as to topogra- 
phy and location of facilities. 

Mr. LISGHER. I think most electric utilities are becoming increas- 
ingly aware of the need to have their facilities attractive as well as 
low in cost. While considerable progress has been made in certain 
areas, much remains to be done. The single, biggest problem is how 
to do it economically so that it will not be an impediment for further 
rate reductions for our customers. 

In the distribution systems to our homes, ten years ago the cost 
ratio of going underground compared to overhead lines was 10 to 1 ; 
today in some instances, it is 1 J/2 to 1 . Much has been accomplished 


by equipment suppliers, by the utility engineers who are looking 
for new methods, by work with the land developers, with contractors 
and, in our own case, with telephone companies for sharing of costs. 
We have been able to achieve this reduction in cost and I am sure 
that we can make further improvement, so that in the very near 
future we can have underground service to new residential develop- 
ments competitive in cost with overhead service because of the 
progress that has been made in driving down costs. Last year in 
our own Chicago area, a little better than 50 percent of all the new 
residential subdivisions went in with underground service. 

If you are talking about conversion of an existing area in a city, 
this becomes an entirely different problem. There the disruption 
that would take place, the cutting of trenches on lawns, the tearing 
up of streets and the existence of gaslines, sewerlines, waterlines, 
and so on, raise the cost. You don't have a 1 or 1% to 1 ratio, 
you can have a 5 to 1 or 1 to 1 ratio, and the home owner himself 
would have to change the facilities at his house to accept a wire 
coming in underground. We have estimated that service entrance 
facilities thus located as compared to coming in overhead, might run 
about $300 for the individual home owner. 

That part of the problem is much, much tougher than the other, 
and much work needs to be done. 

In downtown areas, in most cities of any size, you do have under- 
ground and, in most instances, this is the only acceptable way. 

Now, when we talk about overhead transmission, about high- 
voltage lines that have to be suspended by long strings of insulators 
from large poles or towers, we are talking about an entirely different 
problem. Here we are playing in a different size ball park. We are 
not talking in terms of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars, 
we are talking billions of dollars in differences in construction ratios 
of underground cost to overhead. Those are in the order of 20 to 1 
or even higher than 20 to 1 .* 

Mr. BENNETT. I am a State regulator and I am exposed to the 
public. Generally speaking, the public in my State wants under- 
grounding. This will be accomplished by the action of the States 
and localities. It is basically not a Federal program, because of the 
nature of our Constitution. 

*Mr. Lischer has submitted a statement on electric transmission lines which 
appears later in this chapter. 


We have witnessed the Woodside controversy in California and 
the Bodega Bay controversy. The question is how do we solve this. 
The great role that regulation can play is in acceleration. We un- 
derstand that utilities must make a fair return, no question about that. 
But my view on rate reduction is that while it is not the function 
of the ratepayer to supply capital to the utility, study should be 
made of the most beneficial manner in which cost savings may be 
translated into permanent benefits for consumers. This may require 
an examination of the traditional manner in which rate reductions 
have been treated. Is it better to translate the rate reductions into 
something of permanence such as an aesthetically pleasing under- 
ground line? I will make the decision as a regulator that the pub- 
lic in my State is ready for the exploration of such notions as to rate 

We had some recent substantial reductions of $24 million in our 
electric utilities, and these went to rate reduction. It would have 
been better if they had gone by way of beauty or permanent assets. 
It enhances the neighborhood and improves it, and tax assessors take 
recognition of the fact that undergrounding is aesthetic, beautiful, and 
gives value to property. 

In California, because of the great growth of our State, we are 
able to have rate reductions, and we hope that this shall continue. 
For those areas which do not have that spectacular growth, where 
the utilities are perhaps locked in, I have proposed in the formal 
paper I have delivered here,* but which I am not reciting now, 
that possibly the Federal Government, through some tax subsidy or 
benefit or program, could supply the necessary capital to do this. 
We have to measure our values in our society. We puncture the 
earth to bring out oil and gas, and we have a depletion allowance 
which furnishes incentive. I don't think there is a great deal of 
difference in terms of social values, if we gave some kind of a subsidy 
for puncturing the earth to put a utility facility underground. We 
have an overabundance of oil in this country. If we mean what 
we say in this conference and are determined to meet the problem 
of costs, this would be a way of doing it. You should bear in mind 
in California a jury recently awarded severance damages by virtue 
of the placing of an overhead line and the severance damages were 
awarded in a substantial sum and made the construction of under- 
ground just about as cheap, so to speak, as overhead. 

*Mr. Bennett's formal statement is printed later in this chapter. 
779-59565 24 


One last thought in the brief time I have. There must be public 
controls of routes which utilities select for powerlines. There is just 
as much aesthetic ability in public officials as there is in management. 
We are proposing in California to do this with freeways and I say 
the time has come when we must do it with the long lines of public 

I happen to think we already have the power and most State 
commissions have the power, which is found within the phrase "pub- 
lic convenience and necessity." This conference is an eloquent testi- 
mony to the fact that the rate-paying public and the public generally 
are willing to pay a little bit more and that they want these controls. 
I am certain of this, so the ideal may be realized. 

Mr. WILCOX. Both the electric utility and the electrical manufac- 
turing industries for many years have been exceedingly conscious 
of the need and the desirability of contributing to the attractiveness 
of residential communities and urban areas by improving the design 
of utility facilities or making them invisible to the greatest practical 

The problem is not always susceptible to easy solution, either by 
reason of substantial cost factors involved or by the increasing com- 
plexities of transmitting large blocks of power to satisfy the load 
densities of rapidly expanding urban developments. 

The most significant contribution to the enhancement of the ap- 
pearance of our neighborhood has been underground distribution 
of residential power, and it provides the most potential for early 

A substantial advance has been made in the growth of homes 
served by underground residential distribution. In the past three 
years, the number of new underground residential connections 
increased from 20,000 to 68,000 in 1964. Our forecast for 1965 
is 96,000 new installations. 

These gains are being achieved as a result of the pioneering efforts 
of a number of electric utilities and manufacturers through innova- 
tion, ingenious use of new materials and new methods, and a deter- 
mined attack on cost differential between underground and overhead 
distribution of electricity. 



The progress in reducing the differential in cost has been from 
$450 per lot in 1950, to $280 in 1955, to $175 in 1960, and in 1965, 
to $120. We see a further reduction to a $75-per-lot differential 
through the adoption of other opportunities for savings which are 
generally available to us now. I don't want to burden you with 
technical details, but I am suggesting such possibilities as the use of 
aluminum low-voltage conductors rather than copper, radial laterals 
instead of loops, elimination of high-voltage switching at each trans- 
former, more compact and lower-cost transformers, and use of ran- 
dom lay cables in the same trench. 


Typical URD costs 

URD component 

costs, dollars 
per lot 

Percent of 

Trench and backfill 



Primary cables and terminal connection 



Secondary cables and service pedestals 






Transformer pad 






Total . . 




Rocky soil +.$25. 00 

Primary in coilable duct +35. 00 

Secondary in coilable duct +15. 00 

Services in coilable duct +35. 00 

Perimeter instead of back to back layout +75. 00 

Vault mounted system instead of pad-mount +16. 00 

Radial laterals 1 2. 00 

Aluminum low-voltage conductors 11. 00 

Eliminating high-voltage switch 8. 00 

Random lay cables 6. 00 

Low cost transformer 6. 00 

URD evaluation: 

Reliability and tree trimming 22. 50 

Eliminating joint pole use 12. 50 

Furthermore, the difference in cost can be reduced again to $40 
per lot if the utility evaluates less tangible features, such as in- 
creased reliability, elimination of tree-trimming costs which is a 


factor in overhead lines, and the additional costs to the utility if 
telephone lines go undeground while power lines stay overhead. 

Another pertinent factor to be taken into account is the added 
value of property with underground installations. Mortgagors, 
realtors, and builders evaluated the worth of underground construc- 
tion in a recent survey on the West Coast as follows : The value added 
by mortgagors was $150 per lot, $100 per lot by realtors, and $80 by 
builders. Thus, it would seem that, in addition to aesthetic values 
involved, real estate with underground distribution lines is a good 
buy for the builder-developer of a new subdivision. 

However, it must be kept in mind that the economics of under- 
ground residential distribution is subject to many variables many 
more than might appear on superficial analysis. Table 1 is a cost 
analysis for a typical new subdivision. As you can see, the costs of 
an installation are based on such items as trench construction, types 
of primary and secondary cables and their connections and service 
pedestals, the transformers and the number of customers per trans- 
former. The total cost in this example adds up to $270, which is 
about $120 more per lot than the present average of overhead costs. 

But, in the underground construction, other variables are en- 
countered. The soil itself can make a difference, particularly if it 
is rocky. So can the subdivision layout. The other variables come 
within the realm of judgment. Each utility will make what it be- 
lieves to be the best compromise between the economics of the instal- 
lation and such factors as reliability, safety, its own operating 
practices, and of course the appearance, or aesthetics, of the 
installation. One factor in appearance is the necessary transformer. 

[Mr. Wilcox's statement was accompanied by a series of photo- 
graphs of the devices and installations which he here describes.] 

The most common system employed today is the pad-mounted 
transformer. Westinghouse has given a lot of attention to the design 
of its pad-mounted transformers to make them clean and unob- 
trusive in appearance. But they must still be stationed above ground 
somewhere in the neighborhood. 

An alternative is a compact pad-mount, much smaller and much 
less obtrusive and easily concealed with shrubbery. But it does 
sacrifice some of the operating flexibility provided by the larger 

A design which we think contributes most to the clean, attractive 
appearance of a residential street we call the Somerset Design, and 


it houses a fairly standard transformer in a below-surface vault, con- 
cealed by the base of a street light. 

If street lighting is not used, the vault can be covered at ground 
level by an almost invisible street grating. 

Looking further into the future, we see the possibility of a direct- 
buried transformer, with which several utilities and manufacturers 
are experimenting at the present time. 

Let me emphasize that I have been talking about underground 
distribution for new residential subdivisions, in which the use of 
underground construction is economically feasible. Replacement 
of existing overhead powerlines with an underground system is still 
too expensive to receive anything but token consideration, simply 
because of the tremendous costs involved in taking down existing 
lines and attempting to install underground lines in built-up areas 
with paved streets, concrete sidewalks and a tangle of existing water- 
lines, sewers and buried construction of various sorts. 

Also, while the cost-gap between underground and overhead 
residential power distribution has narrowed to a point of practicality, 
the cost of underground transmission is prohibitively expensive for 
the vast majority of high-voltage, high-capacity transmission line 
application. Present 220 and 345-kv. underground cable trans- 
mission is many times the cost of overhead transmission, even though 
in many situations it must be used because of prohibitions against 
going overhead through congested metropolitan centers. 

Cable circuits have much lower limits of power-carrying capability 
than overhead circuits. For example, a 345-kv. cable can carry up 
to 500,000 kv.-a. effectively for distances of up to 15 miles. For 
greater distances, additional equipment is required. Underground 
systems of the future may require transmission capabilities in excess 
of 2 million kv.-a. for 25 or more miles. 

One solution is to improve the power-carrying capacity of the 
cable. Another possible solution, looking to the future, is suggested 
by our engineers who are exploring the use of pressurized gas as the 
insulating medium with the conductor being supported inside a pipe 
by appropriate cylindrical insulators. 

Three 12- to 14-inch pipes could operate at 345,000 volts and 
carry up to 1,500,000 kv.-a. for distances up to 300 miles. This 
would provide three times the carrying capacity now possible with 
conventional cable systems, for 20 times the distance. We have 
labeled this the Pressure Insulated Piped Electrical System, and we 
have already made an urban substation layout utilizing this system 


which would be a significant innovation and a most worthwhile 
contribution to landscape attractiveness. This design would take 
up only one-twentieth of the real estate space required by existing 
substations. This small, compact substation would be completely 
enclosed, and all of the live parts of the substation would be insulated 
with pressurized gas. 

This design eliminates contamination, radio influence and light- 
ning problems. As in the case of point-to-point transmission appli- 
cation, this substation would be considerably more expensive in first- 
cost than a conventional open-bus substation. But where space and 
land values are important considerations, the added cost would be 
offset by the inherent advantages, both practical and aesthetic, of this 

Again attacking the problem of increasing underground power- 
carrying capacities, Westinghouse engineers are also looking to circuit 
transmission utilizing conducting material which is refrigerated to 
a cryogenic temperature of 450 F. Such a superconducting trans- 
mission line might be constructed with a center region containing 
two superconductors and liquid helium flowing from a refrigerator. 
Surrounding the center region would be multiple radiation shield 
thermal insulation. The very high current which can be achieved 
with this system would permit the use of low voltages of 13,000 to 
25,000 volts, such as those employed in large generators and dis- 
tribution systems. 

These are but a few of the advanced concepts which can contrib- 
ute to the objectives under discussion here today. They are evidence 
of the possibilities ahead of us and also are evidence of the keen inter- 
est which the electric utilities and the electrical manufacturers have 
in enhancing the appearance of our residential communities, of our 
cities and of the Nation as a whole. 

Major research and development programs will be required to im- 
plement these ideas and to translate designs into working realities. 
Large expenditures will be necessary to support such research and 
development. I would like to suggest a thorough evaluation of the 
problems and of the potentials as the basis for a possible support pro- 
gram in the form of research and development funding by the electric 
utility industry. 

Mr. SWIDLER. Standards of beauty are not eternal; each genera- 
tion develops its own. I think that public administrators and the 
electric utilities industry must accept the standards of beauty which 


prevail in the Nation and the various communities rather than inter- 
pose their own. And if, in this country, the people in any particular 
area think that overhead transmission lines are unsightly and that 
we should make a strenuous effort to eliminate them from the land- 
scape, I think this becomes the challenge for the industry and for the 
people associated with the industry. 

Nevertheless, I think we might get this problem in perspective. 
For practical purposes, I think the distribution problem is well in 
hand. The transfer of small amounts of energy for short distances 
at low voltages presents no great technological or economic problem 
at the present time. The problem of heavy transmission lines is dif- 
ferent. I am talking about transferring large amounts of power long 
distances at high voltage. And this presents very serious problems. 

Electric transmission towers are neutral in their effect on the 
environment. They produce no contamination and they have no 
cumulative byproducts. Sitting here and listening to the previous 
panelists discussing the results of surface coal mining and the prob- 
lems of contamination which result, I realize that this is a high 
priority problem which, in comparison with the transmission line 
problem, will be a low-cost problem to resolve. The problem of 
electric transmission is the other way around. The towers ultimately 
could be removed. They do not harm the landscape. They hurt no 
one while they are erected and in operation. I think they present 
a relatively low priority problem and yet one that requires truly 
enormous amounts of money to solve. You could solve almost all of 
the problems, all the other problems of natural beauty which have 
been discussed in this whole conference for only probably a part of 
the money that is involved in undergrounding the electric transmis- 
sion systems in this country. 

The problem arises, if I may speak about the technology (I am a 
lawyer and I say this on what we call information and belief), that 
when you transfer power on a metallic conductor, you generate heat. 
In the outside atmosphere, this is no problem, and at low voltage for 
short distances, this is not much of a problem. But when you take 
that line and try to put it underground and bury it which is the 
ordinary desire of people who don't like to look at the transmission 
towers then you have a problem of dissipating your heat under- 
ground. This problem is aggravated by the fact that you are deal- 
ing with a very dangerous voltage so that you have to insulate your 


Since you cannot readily dissipate the heat, the heat tends to 
build up to a point of destroying the electrical insulation. I am 
talking now about present technology, and not about the advanced 
systems that Mr. Wilcox described here. The ordinary insulation 
presently used is simply oil-impregnated paper and the cable is im- 
mersed in an oil bath held in a conduit. 

Now, in order to move the current along, so much heat is gener- 
ated, and the heat increases on a geometric basis with distance and 
volume of current, so that for a 25- or 30-mile stretch, you would get 
so much heat built up for nonuseful purposes that no useful power 
could be transferred. 

This means that, as a practical matter, in present technology a 
long underground line is just not a very useful line to take care of the 
great responsibility of the industry to move large blocks of power for 
long distances. 

There is no fixed ratio of costs underground as compared with 
overhead construction. In the present technology, the ratio would 
vary from a minimum of several to 1 to 20 or even 50 to 1, depending 
on the length of the line, its capacity, and other factors. A broad 
program of substitution would require drastic upward revision in 
power costs, on a major scale, perhaps on the order of half as much 
again as we are paying. And I think we are presented with the 
question, is it worth it on any broad scale? 

In practice, if undergrounding were required for all new high- 
voltage construction, the Nation would be compelled to revert to 
isolated generating plants within or close to metropolitan areas, in 
order to minimize the transmission investment. This would entail 
great sacrifices of economy in power transmission operation as well 
as accentuate the air pollution problems that confront our metro- 
politan areas today. In my judgment, this would not be progress, 
but retrogression. 

Now, Mr. Wilcox has described to you many promising possibili- 
ties through radical improvements in technology. There is much 
the industry could do, both to improve the existing technology and 
to develop these breakthroughs, and I think they will come. I think 
undoubtedly in another generation, perhaps much less, we will get 
the kind of ratio of costs in transmitting large blocks of power for 
long distances that has now been achieved by the industry in dis- 
tribution. This is what we should press for, to advance the tech- 
nology as fast as it can possibly be done, so that we can bring closer 


the day when people can look upon a landscape free from trans- 
mission towers, but without paying an exhorbitant cost for that 
freedom of view. 

One thing you must keep in mind is that, unlike the problem of 
distribution where you can ask the home owner to share in the cost of 
improving his home by putting the distribution lines underground, 
it is very difficult to make a fair allocation of the costs and burdens 
of undergrounding transmission lines, because a relatively few land- 
owners may benefit, but hundreds of thousands or millions of power 
consumers may be picking up the tab. I think not only the land- 
owners, but the power consumers should be consulted. 

I have heard landowners say, "It is worth it. I am willing to pay 
a few cents more for electricity to get rid of the towers." They 
say this even though the company involved is not the company that 
serves them with electricity. They say this even though not only 
they, but millions of other power consumers, would have to make 
a contribution a large contribution, not a few pennies to spare 
them the necessity of looking upon transmission towers. 

I think we can all work toward a solution to this problem. In 
the meantime the industry should do everything possible to minimize 
adverse scenic effects of overhead transmission. 

The Federal Power Commission recently created an advisory 
committee on underground transmission for the purpose of survey- 
ing all the possibilities of the present technology, and of suggesting 
how we might press for improvements in the future. We expect 
that report before the end of the year. I think it will make a sub- 
stantial contribution to advancing the day when we will have free- 
dom of choice in the kind of transmission without severe economic 

Mr. DYCKMAN. I think there has been, in all of this discussion, a 
remarkable neglect of the planning perspective. I hope that I can 
speak as a planner, if not as an expert on utilities. 

It seems to me that with remarkably few exceptions the issues 
which we have been discussing or have heard being discussed this 
afternoon take as given, the entire present pattern, both of the dis- 
tribution of customers and the distribution of services. It seems 
to me, this is not at all a necessary state of affairs. 

I don't want to paint a picture for you of an entirely new system 
today, because I don't know now what the new system will be like. 
I just want to point out that the present one is changing very much. 


When I say that it is changing, I would like to suggest that even 
such questions as the necessary length of line over which we must 
carry the high-voltage systems, are themselves functions of this pat- 
tern of distribution, and in some cases they are functions of quite 
irrational and quite unplanned accidents of utility company juris- 
dictions left over from the past. 

Nobody in this country has as yet designed whole communities 
which minimize some of the problems that we are talking about 
here today, but certainly that is not outside our competence. 

I don't want to put forward a special perspective the benefit- 
cost issue or public choice perspective because I think that Mr. 
Bennett alluded to this, and I think we are fortunate that Mr. Ben- 
nett is so sensitive to this issue. But the present pattern which we 
have developed in our country has often given local communities 
and local citizens very little choice in the matter of land use by utili- 
ties, and I think this is something which local communities are now 
beginning to attack with some kind of vigor. 

This point is made very clear in the Woodside issue which Mr. 
Bennett spoke about, which involved some high-voltage lines. The 
issue was not really: Shall there be any high- voltage lines or shall 
there be any high-voltage lines above ground or underground, but 
shall they be along a certain alignment which was especially damag- 
ing to the view and to the scenic character of the area? 

As long as it was determined by the utilities and others that it had 
to be along a certain alignment, then the citizens said, let us put 
this underground. They made it very clear that in this event they 
would be prepared to face all the consequences of doing this. 

I suggest we have hardly begun to explore the real choice situa- 
tion, the real alternatives open to communities in these situations. 
If a community wishes to place an especially high value on a particu- 
lar site or a particular view, then it seems to me there are plenty 
of mechanisms for recouping the added cost, even if they be 10 to 1. 

The Highway Act principle, which we employ in this country, 
demonstrates very well, for example, that we could in fact take up 
to 3 5/2 percent off the capital costs of Federal projects and highways 
for beautification and scenic purposes. A similar principle applied 
to the utilities would in some cases have well handled the costs that 
were added. Not in all, but in a number of cases, such a formula 
offers quite a bit of promise. It may be a question whether we 
want to invoke such a formula, but certainly the possibility exists. 


Similarly, I think, when we look at the problems, we ought to 
perhaps distinguish those which are technical and economic from 
those which are basically, at the present stage of the game, engineer- 
ing problems. In the long haul, a good deal will have to be done 
in the way of State planning and Federal planning to create the 
real possibilities for choice for communities operating vis-a-vis the 
utility problem. As bitter as it may be, State planning in particular 
is going to have to rationalize the present pattern of distribution, so 
as to avoid some of the most unfavorable aspects of the present in- 
fringement, on the scenic beauty. 

I remember when I was a boy in the Niagara frontier, where a lot 
of power was generated by Niagara Falls, that we had the most 
extraordinary pattern of crisscrossing of utility lines, all through 
Ontario, because the utility companies were trying to cut each other 
out of specially favored territories, and engaged in an intricate game 
of real estate dominoes. 

In a certain respect, this is what will have to be controlled and 
controllable in the future by State planners. 

When I say State planning, I mean the activities of the public 
utilities commissions themselves. 

Very likely, too, as Mr. Bennett suggests, we will have to suggest 
long-range funding. We will have to facilitate the prospect of creat- 
ing public funds by a system of charges needed to build up the re- 
sources for the research and development activities which will 
eliminate some of the more undesirable features of the present-day 
transmission pattern. It is very likely, too, that we will have to ask 
for Federal cooperation at the planning level for Federal use of 
some of the powers which already exist in Federal agencies to bring 
about some of the more difficult changes with respect to our present 
undesirable pattern. 

For example, the Federal Housing Administration is in a position 
to greatly facilitate the relocation of some unsightly utilities by 
simply supporting the value, the increment, in its own loan policy. 
If it is willing to recognize an absolute premium on properties which 
are not blighted scenically, then it has the potential for creating a 
very favorable loan situation. This is one of the things that you 
need to get at. 

The problem is that we have high costs on the capital side and 
very long amortization periods. The Federal Housing Agency 
could help out by its valuation policies. 


I have already mentioned the Highway Act principle. I think 
there are many other such powers now in the Federal community 
facilities program, and others, which could be used. 

To sum up, I am not convinced if we care very much about 
the scenic defects of utilities, if we care very much about some of the 
safety effects of utilities, if we care very much about some of the 
general blighting issues that have been raised, that it is beyond our 
power to change these. I feel very strongly that we are not victims 
of existing technology in this regard, and we are not really at the 
mercy of altogether unfavorable cost estimations. Put differently, 
not all the costs we now favor are unavoidable costs.* 

Mr. McMuLLiN. As a bridge for the discussion by the audience, 
I would just like to firm up some of the things said here by various 
members of the panel. First of all, there certainly is a growing aware- 
ness on this matter of eliminating electric lines and putting them 
underground. This awareness is certainly developing among the 
people, and as a result of the awareness by the people, it is develop- 
ing with the utilities and the utilities are responding with incentive 
programs for underground installations. They provide cash allow- 
ances and advertising and other incentives for the developer, and 
also cash allowances and participation in financing to put the lines 
underground. And there are predictions that within five or ten 
years, all installations, all new installations, will go underground. 

Now, as has been pointed up, the existing overhead lines present 
another problem. One of the things that is being done by many 
utilities is improving the overhead installations, making the poles 
more graceful, less obvious, doing many things to at least please the 
eye. Although I am associated with a utility, I have to confess that 
we haven't always had aesthetics in mind in doing some of the things 
we do. I think of the transformer that hangs outside the picture 
window at home. But I don't dare ask to have it moved, because 
I will be in trouble. 

We can improve the design on the overhead installations. Some 
effort is being made to give this a name called "power styling" or 
"community styling" as we call it in our organization. 

How can we speed up these programs? Professor Dyckman has 
mentioned financing. This is certainly one of the ways, a practical 
way. I think it may take some amending of title II under FHA, 

*Mr. Dyckman has submitted a further statement which appears later in this 


which is the portion of FHA loans for improvements. Maybe this 
can be done for putting lines underground, to join consumers to- 
gether in some kind of a district to get long-term and low-cost fi- 
nancing. The utility can cooperate by putting the payments on 
the bill and paying the funds to the Federal Government on the 
repayment program. 

I am addressing myself to underground distribution lines within 
the communities. Research is still needed here to bring those costs 
down. We are down to l*/^ to 1, as Mr. Lischer pointed out here. 
Well, the object is to get it down to even cost and then this will make 
it practical to go underground with all installations. 

Certainly, it behooves the utility to take an aggressive approach to 
solving this problem and with this awareness comes the need to dig 
into the problem and really get at it. 

I think conferences such as this help make the utility conscious of 
it, aware of it, and I think all of us and all the utility people who 
may be present here, will take the message home that we have a job 
to do and we have to translate this program into action in our 

In regard to transmission, it behooves us to look at this problem, as 
Mr. Bennett pointed out. We need to look at the practical side at 
possibilities of rerouting lines, bringing power into our cities on 
power avenues or energy rights-of-way which will conflict less with 
the scenic values of the community or the area. 

Here again, turning to Professor Dyckman, this is an area per- 
haps for tax incentives like the present construction tax credit. This 
is applied to utilities and I believe is some 3 percent. This may be 
an incentive for rerouting or for going underground in critical areas, 
recognizing as brought out here, that undergrounding has a prohibi- 
tive cost. 

Again, there is a lot to be done in improving the appearance of the 
towers, making them more attractive and making them fit into the 
landscape more. We can do a lot on this. 

In some areas committees have been organized to take care of this. 
We have a 24-utility committee out in the West covering five States 
Arizona, California, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico called the 
Utility Appearance Committee, and we are working aggressively to 
resolve some of these problems. 

Research is an answer. I think maybe it calls for some Federal 
grants joined by the utilities, the manufacturers, and the Federal 


Government. We need to speed up this research and solve this 
problem of how to put these extra high-voltage lines underground.* 

Questions and Discussion 

Mr. CISLER. I have been in energy and the power industry for 
nearly 43 years, and I have seen great changes occurring during that 
time, not only in research, but in design and operations. There are 
under way in this country tremendous developments in the field of 
energy and power. I wonder if we realize that we have in the 
United States as much electric power as the next five nations in the 
world, including the Soviet Union. And more and more of our total 
energy requirements will be in the form of electric energy. 

Therefore, we must move tremendous amounts of energy from 
one area, from the source of generation, to the many, many points 
of utilization. This can only be done by the use of high-voltage 
transmission lines from the generating stations to the substations and 
from there to the low-voltage service connections. There is a very 
close relationship between private industry and the public operating 
organizations in connection with research and development. The 
Edison Electric Institute is concerned, it has been for many years, 
with the improvement of overhead and underground installations. 
There is a handbook which has been in existence since 1957 in con- 
nection with underground transmission work. 

There has been formed recently an advisory group between the 
public and the private industry in connection with research and 
development, and I believe that there is much that can be done in 
improving the appearance of both overhead and underground 

Mr. BENNETT. Public utilities have the power of eminent domain. 
If this weren't Federal property, they could walk through it and 
condemn it as their own. That is as it should be, because the 
public decided in the public interest, utilities should have the right 
to extend the lines for the over-all good but that was in a society 
that wasn't as complex as it is today. We see the difficulty in a 
situation in California today. Utilities have the right to v/alk down 
the scenic routes and over agricultural land, and there arises the 
question whether there should be some limit on this. 

*Mr. McMullin has contributed a further statement, which appears later in 
this chapter. 


When you go to a given community, small in size, you can find 
a local planning commission, not skilled in the requirements of 
planning and a local community intent upon tax revenue from the 
utility facilities. It occurs to me that this power of eminent domain 
must be modified. We must view these projects now, since we are 
such a complex society, as being beyond the province of one local 
planning commission. 

This can be done. We have done it in other areas. It gets back 
to the thought I expressed originally. There must be a public agency 
which will interpose upon the community, upon the judgment of 
management, the final determination whether this is aesthetically 
pleasing. And I for one would support such legislation. There 
is a bill in California to that end, and I plan to speak on behalf of it. 

Mr. NELSON. I would like to ask Mr. Bennett a question. Did 
I understand you to say that if the utility chooses a more expensive 
method in extending its distribution system, that when the utility 
made an application for a rate increase, you wouldn't challenge that 
utility as having taken the expensive way of doing it? 

Mr. BENNETT. No, I didn't say that, and I didn't mean you to 
conclude that, but I will say that we will have to recognize this. If 
we want to save Yosemite Park, and let's say it is private ownership, 
the most direct route might be from a line A to a line B. If it is more 
expensive to go some other route, to save some scenic highway or 
area or national park or whatever, certainly we have to pay for 
that other route, otherwise we will not get it. As a regulator, I would 
recognize that as being a legitimate expense. 

Mr. NELSON. Isn't the Public Utilities Commission of America 
meeting in Sun Valley right today? Maybe we should get a telegram 
off to them. 

Gus NORWOOD. Four quick comments : 

1 . Mr. Dyckman, FHA now gives you a higher appraisal on un- 
derground if, in fact, that increases the value of the property. 

2. On installation, Seattle City Light has been using local im- 
provement districts for undergrounding for conversion from another 

3. The panel has discussed this problem almost entirely in terms 
of initial costs. Underground facilities generally have longer life 
and the O. & M. costs are less. We find this brings the two annual 
costs much closer together. In rare cases, underground is actually 


cheaper. The real test of costs is what are the annual costs, not what 
is the initial investment. 

4. Mr. Nelson may want to comment on this. Under the Col- 
lier-Burns Act of California, the highway right-of-way is multipur- 
pose. This is the only State where this is recognized. All the other 
States insist that the right-of-way is like the railroad, which prohibits 
other utilities to get on except by sufferance. The utility corridor, or 
whatever you want to call it, is one of the things I would like to see 
explored further, particularly by the new panel that the Federal 
Power Commission is bringing into being. 

A DELEGATE. No amount of aesthetic redesign of transmission 
turrets can make up for the destroyed homes, for the desecrated 
landscape and for the loss to communities that result in the pathway 
of these turret lines. 

Why hasn't there been advantage taken of technological advances 
that do not require utilities overground, such as gas turbines that 
are being used by other visionary utilities? 

Mr. SWIDLER. Well, there are certain troubles with gas turbines. 
One, they're not very efficient. They give off a lot of air pollutants. 
They are not very good for the community where they are located. 
They have a high noise problem that really will create a neighbor- 
hood inconvenience. And in addition to that, there is a question 
involved as to whether this is the right way to make use of natural 
gas supply on a year-round basis, whether it contributes to the best 
use of our exhaustible resource of natural gas. These units are, for 
the most part, peaking units, which are too expensive to operate 
on base load. You need a peaking unit when you hit your peak, 
which may be the same time that your natural gas peak occurs. 
You might thus need to build special gas transmission facilities to be 
sure you would have desired capacity there when you need it. For 
all these reasons, they fit some places, but they don't fit every place. 

Mrs. ALEXANDER SAUNDERS. This question goes along with what 
Mr. Bennett has been saying : What control may a community exert 
or expect to obtain by legislation to prohibit overhead lines or to 
request underground lines when the power that is being transmitted 
is not used by the community in question? 

Mr. BENNETT. Briefly, you run into this question, that a local 
ordinance may be unconstitutional under State law because the 
matter is of statewide concern. 


I suspect in California that one community couldn't have electric 
lines underground and the next community above ground, and so 
on. It is a matter of statewide concern, and local ordinances run 
into that danger. This is why State control is what is required. 

Mrs. WILLIAM G. REYMOND. As a housewife, I think we should 
not fail to point out what a wonderful job the utilities do and have 
done in supplying our utility services. They keep us cool in the sum- 
mer, warm in the winter and cook our food, and do all the other 
things which we would miss otherwise. In fact, Hurricane Hilda, 
which blew into Louisiana last October, knocked our power out for 
four days and brought closely to our mind how important utilities 
are and how much we depend on them. 

But I think utilities for the most part, although they supply us 
with something very important, have been negligent in doing just the 
minimum in preserving the beauty of our country. I am glad to see 
that so much work has been done on improving the design of the 
facilities, for I am aware of a pipeline situation in our local refinery 
which is comparable. They had so much confusion in the pipes, 
they finally took them all up from underground and organized them 
on well-designed overhead tracks through the refinery. Now, they 
have become an aesthetic asset, not an eyesore. 

The utility companies are missing a bet in not doing something like 
this with their wires. A well-designed pole and well-organized lines 
could actually remind the consumer, as he drives down the highway, 
that these wires keep him cool in the summer and warm in the winter. 

A DELEGATE. A gentleman here asked the question of multiple 
use of rights-of-way, and there was no discussion and no answer. I 
should like to ask Mr. Bennett or Mr. Dyckman if there is any reason 
why various utilities shouldn't use the same right-of-way and thereby 
condemn less property. 

Mr. LISCHER. Speaking only for the area that I am familiar with, 
we have underway an intensive program to put high-voltage trans- 
mission lines on railroad rights-of-way wherever possible. We 
think this is a benefit to us, to our consumers, and to the railroads. 
Just recently we completed an arrangement with the Illinois Tollway 
Commission, whereby we can actually put powerlines on their right- 
of-way for a given distance. I think there is much to be said in 
favor of this. 



Mr. DYCKMAN. There is also much to be said for having a single 
trench, if you are going underground, for more than one utility sys- 
tem. There are some technical problems in this, but, in the very 
long haul, I think we are going to have to plan for such systems. 
Many utilities are changing their technology, making new installa- 
tions and replacing existing equipment. It seems to me, when this 
is done, we shouldn't have a lot of incremental decisions, one piled 
on the other, without regard to some long-run shared interest. The 
community may have to find the way to do this which will be most 
economical and in the long run, most aesthetic. 

I am looking for the time when the telephone people, who have 
problems with this now, are sharing common rights-of-way in com- 
mon trenches perhaps with the power transmitters and others. 

Mrs. SUSAN STONE. I live in the franchise of the Illinois Power 
Co., and perhaps Mr. Lischer knows something about them (and 
their operations) that I don't know. I suspect they haven't heard 
about some of the suggestions that have been mentioned by the panel 
today. I wonder very seriously whether a compilation of these sug- 
gestions will automatically go to all power companies throughout 

Mr. CISLER. It is a very good thought, and I can assure you that 
much of what has been said here will be passed on. 

Mrs. STONE. Thank you. 

I have one other question, and that is, will the panel make spe- 
cific recommendations to the President tomorrow on Federal incen- 
tive programs, perhaps to help power companies in local communities 
shift from above ground to below ground in existing installations 
and shift to some of the schemes that Mr. Wilcox mentioned, more 
compatible substations and transformers, this sort of thing? If ex- 
pense is a factor in shifting, can we look forward to Federal incentive 
recommendations from your panel? 

Mr. CISLER. There has been no decision made on what the panel 
will say, but I can assure you that much of what you point out is 
already being done. 

Mr. McMuLLiN. I would like to comment to the point raised by 
the lady just now. I know that the American Public Power Asso- 
ciation is carrying on a very aggressive program to bring to the at- 
tention of their membership the need for meeting the community 


responsibility in this area. I know, Mr. Cisler, that your Edison 
Electric Institute is doing the same. Mr. Gisler is the immediate 
past president of that organization. I am the immediate past presi- 
dent of the Public Power Association. 

RALPH LOGHER. I was a little disturbed by the statement that the 
new development seemed to lend itself best to the underground in- 
stallations. Frankly, that would only be compounding the problem 
that we have in the older communities. I believe it is because of 
the great volume of business that was generated not by suburbia but 
by the good old section of the town, where much of the industry is 
located, and many of our pollution and other problems, that the elec- 
tric companies, private and public, are in the sound and enviable 
position they are in today. Therefore, I would urge, even though it 
may be a little cheaper to put them underground in suburbia, our 
problem is to prevent the blight and to beautify the areas that need 
it most, not out in the new and fresh, clean areas, but in the older 
parts of the old cities of the United States. 

Therefore, I would hope that the private and public power com- 
panies will not put all their underground installations on the outskirts 
of cities where it is less expensive rather than where we need them 

Secondly it is very encouraging that you reckon the cost of under- 
ground versus overhead at a ratio of 1 y% to 1. A few years ago, 
when I hoped we could do this in Cleveland, it was then 10 to 1 
or 20 to 1 . Now it is down to a point where it is much more efficient 
and feasible. 

But do you reckon in the costs, Mr. Wilcox, such things as the 
cost of the lawsuit when a crane, as happened recently near Cleve- 
land, hits an overhead line and a man gets killed or when two or 
three of these monstrous towers get blown over, as happened not 
too long ago in our part of the country, when we have long periods 
of outages, and the public is inconvenienced? Are these things 
reckoned as well as the aesthetic considerations and as well as the 
planning considerations? 

It seems to me also, there is the important consideration of lower 
fire rates when you don't have these hazards. I suspect, but I am 
no authority on this, that if you were to reckon all of these costs, you 
might find that it is not 1 5/2 to 1 ; it very well might be 1 to 1 . 


ALLAN TEMKO. I have two short questions. One might be ad- 
dressed to Mr. Swidler at the national level and Mr. Bennett at the 
State level. 

The Woodside powerline controversy, mentioned earlier, was a 
direct result of the large-scale Federal investment, $125 million, on 
the Stanford campus for a linear accelerator, and, indeed, the power- 
lines on the peninsula of San Francisco, very large installations there, 
are all heavily affected by large-scale Federal investment, say, in the 
Lockheed plant, at Sunnyvale, which is a big power consumer. Is 
it possible for the Federal Government to take an overview of this 
magnitude, to anticipate needs which often conflict with other forms 
of development? The same complex of powerlines has marred the 
city of Forest City, a large-scale, so-called new town, only a short 
distance away; powerlines go through the center of that new, so- 
called planned community. 

The second short question, perhaps to Mr. Wilcox: What of re- 
search and development which might be of only marginal immediate 
interest to the private utility companies and the manufacturers, 
such as wireless transmission of energy, or say the application of an 
invisible wire amplitron, which the Raytheon people conceived? 
Can the Nation in some way hasten large-scale application of such 
revolutionary devices? 

Mr. WILCOX. I would say this is a very great distance in the 
future. I know of no feasible way now to transmit even small 
amounts of power which could be utilized by you or by me in our 
homes by this method. 

And while I will not say that we will never do it, I will say that 
the time is very much in the future, so far away, that I think it is 
generations rather than decades. 

Mr. CISLER. Mr. Swidler will answer the first part of your 

Mr. SWIDLER. Or a part of it. I think everyone would concede 
that there are high-priority areas where additional expense of under- 
grounding is warranted, and, indeed, there is a good deal of under- 
ground in the congested centers of most of our major cities. 

An English article had a good phrase for it. It said that under- 
grounding should be reserved for areas of high congestion or "places 
where the visual amenities are in the highest category," pointing 
out that for one mile of undergrounding of 275,000 kv. (a voltage 


which is used in the United Kingdom but not here) , they would have 
an additional cost equal to the total amount appropriated annually 
by Parliament for all historic sites in England and Wales. 

So I think how much you underground depends on how you 
manage your total resources in meeting all of your problems. If 
this is it, there is some money you should be spending for under- 
grounding, but it is so very expensive that if you are planning to 
do a good deal of it, it raises a question as to whether it is the right 
way for us to use national assets. 

Mr. CISLER. I think this points out the great need for better 
understanding on the part of the public in general of some of the 
great problems that are involved, particularly in the high-voltage 

HAL CLARK. We are meeting this same problem all through my 
area, including the Keystone project. When this project came up, 
the engineers couldn't see where there could be any other thing done 
except to continue pounding the stakes down and getting the land 
prepared for a plant on Hendrix Island on the Delaware River. It 
seemed they had a feeling that there wasn't any alternative, such as 
the very fine views we are getting here today from this great panel. 

We have had a number of meetings, and the last one I attended 
was at the Overseas Press Club in New York. We had representa- 
tives from Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and 
Delaware. Most of the people there are for private enterprise, like 
I am, 100 percent, but they felt, as one man expressed it, that if we 
can spend $40 to $100 billion to get to the moon, we certainly can 
well afford to save the face of the land that produces the taxes to 
put the man on the moon. 

Therefore, they thought there should be a crash program, and that 
the Federal Government should be interested in it. As for Mr. 
Temko, they very much backed the position that there should be 
government control over where these lines shall go. 

Now we are facing imminent building of some of these projects 
at the present time. In our county of Bucks County, we have a very 
fine planning commission, and we are meeting with the engineers 
of the Keystone project, very fine people. We know they have a 
problem. We know that we cannot stop the building up of elec- 
tricity, because in the Delaware Basin alone we represent 1 percent 
of the land of this country, but we have developed 17 percent of 


the wealth and 17 percent of the taxes. This is going to double and 
redouble, and it means more electricity. 

We are very much concerned that this great complex from ocean 
to ocean may develop before there is serious thought and serious 
action in getting something underway. We cannot talk of beginning 
maybe in ten years. We think it should be expedited and it should 
be expedited in a way that will not cripple the big public utility upon 
which we depend. 

Dr. RICHARD GOODWIN. I would like to make one comment. We 
have been hearing a great deal about the engineering problems in 
getting power around the country and it is very evident that we will 
have above-ground lines for some time to come. I am a botanist 
by background and this conference, which is concerned with beauty, 
should be concerned with the flora underneath these powerlines. We 
are talking about many hundreds of thousands of acres of land in the 
country. I would like to suggest to the panel that they consider mak- 
ing recommendations to the President and to their companies about 
giving more consideration to the hiring on their staffs of knowledge- 
able ecologists to advise in the management of the vegetation. 

I will only refer to the problem of brownout, which many of us 
have deplored, going across the country with the indiscriminate use 
of herbicides. This is an unnecessary thing, and I think the power 
companies can actually make a financial saving by using better eco- 
logical techniques. 

WILLIAM CECIL. I don't have a local problem. I think we lost 
sight a little bit of the natural beauty aspects of power transmission. 
Power has to come in. It has to be transported. I would like to 
suggest that a more, shall we say, conservative line of thought be taken 
in clearing operations for the powerlines. A transmission line needs 
a certain large amount of area, but not as much as has normally been 
taken. Instead of chopping down all the trees, we should chop off 
the dead trees that will fall on the line and leave the healthy ones 
beside them. We can cut down the acreage with a little bit of land- 
scape planning in the rights-of-way. We can do a lot to diminish 
the course of a straight-line cut. 

I know, when you fly across the country, this is what we see, 
a straight-line cut. I don't think it is necessary. I think that with 
good planning on the part of the utilities, you can have your over- 
head lines, which are the economic ones, and you can get your power. 
What we are really discussing is the beauty of this country. You 


change your rights-of-way and leave shrubs, thus taking care of the 
straight-line problems without increasing major maintenance 

CHARLES BRIDGES. I agree with the gentleman from Cleveland 
when he urges us to give more consideration to undergrounding the 
utilities in the older districts of town. 

For example, when the panel members say that 50 percent of "new 
construction" has underground utilities, the figures sound very im- 
pressive and we might easily assume that a creditable job is being 
done. Remember, however, that in any one year less than 5 percent 
of the total area of any town is what might be called "new construc- 
tion". And if only half of that 5 percent is underground, it means 
that only 2}/> percent of the total area of any town is going under- 
ground in any one year! Let's also face up to the fact that if 50 
percent of "new construction" is going underground, the other 50 
percent is not going under which means that in fact we are not 
winning the fight against the poles, and that we are instead losing 
ground and adding every year to the jungle of wood and wire. 

The only solution is to start now to go underground in the older 

Consider also that any one pole in an area of "new construction" 
may be seen by half a dozen people in any one day, whereas a pole 
in an older area particularly downtown may be seen by thousands 
of people daily. This means that the 5 percent which we started 
out with, but which became 2 l /z percent upon examination, now has 
been reduced to less than hundreths of a percent in terms of visual 
impact and aggravation value. 

Let's not accept "new construction" figures which lull us into 
complacency. Let's instead concentrate on going underground with 
our utilities in those areas which count most downtown, and along 
our highways. 

Mrs. VALLEY KNUDSEN. For the past few years we have been 
making quite a study of the problem of putting utilities underground. 
Very little has been said today about the danger of broken wires and 
the creating of fires. These broken wires were caused by wind. We 
went through the fire in Glendale caused by broken wires in three 
different places. I wonder how serious you feel this is, having utili- 
ties above ground in case of wind and fire. 

Mr. CISLER. It is a question we will consider in our deliberations. 


Statements Submitted for the Record 

WILLIAM M. BENNETT.* In the State of California the public is 
becoming more and more concerned about the appearance of utility 
installations and facilities. The trend, particularly in new subdivi- 
sions, is toward undergrounding. 

So far as transmission lines are concerned, while complete beauty 
is an ideal, no way has yet been found toward a satisfactory formula 
for apportioning costs. 

The key to aesthetics inevitably is cost. We accept the premise 
that the general public and rate payers are aware of the problem of 
costs and despite that fact wish to arrive at that point in time when 
both distribution and transmission systems generally speaking will 
be underground. 

As to costs, as a society we have learned a great deal about the 
benefits which can be achieved through utilization of the economic 
system. The most timely example of massive economic wellbeing 
comes from the recent Federal tax reductions. And here may be 
the key which will permit the realization of aesthetics in the utility 
field and which will solve the problem of costs. There is really 
nothing new or novel in granting a tax benefit for certain purposes. 
For example the statutory depletion allowance represents public 
policy to the end that incentives be provided for the exploration and 
dvelopment of oil and gas. If this type of tax benefit, which has 
been estimated to cost the Treasury Department $2 billion annually, 
may be accorded for the development of oil and gas, then so also is 
it not only possible to confer upon public utilities such a benefit but 
in the long run may be even more socially desirable. A balancing of 
social and economic values may indicate that favored tax treatment 
should be channeled in new directions. This is not to say that this 
treatment is the sole or exclusive method whereby the problem of 
cost may be met. It should be remembered that the National Power 
Survey projects enormous savings in the electric industry and prop- 
erly states that these savings should be passed on to rate payers. 

Benefits to rate payers can take many forms beyond that of lower 
electric rates and one of the permanent benefits would be that such 
savings together with such tax incentives as may be required shall be 
utilitized to create a system of underground utilities for the nation. 

*This is an extension of the remarks made by Mr. Bennett during the panel 


We should not be deterred in any event by the immediate cost 
problem since as I have pointed out, economic tools exist both within 
the electric utility industry itself and by virtue of tax programs to 
meet this problem. Undergrounding shoud be viewed as a capital 
investment, the benefits not to be measured by cost alone. There 
is the enhancement to the landscape which has its own benefit and 
which in our society can be translated into an improvement in prop- 
erty values . 

I urge for discussion and study the desirability and feasibility of 
conferring tax incentives upon public utilities so as to realize the ideal 
of undergrounding and secondly I urge exploration of the precise 
form the savings to be realized from power pooling and interties 
should take. 

CARLTON J. DAISS. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics 
Engineers has given a great deal of attention to the problems of un- 
derground distribution and the improved appearance of overhead 
construction. Mr. C. A. Woodrow is chairman of IEEE's Power 
Group and Mr. L. J. Weed is chairman of the Underground and 
Distribution Subcommittee of its Transmission and Distribution 
Committee. They have prepared the following summary: 

Some 10 or 12 years ago several privately owned electric utilities 
in the country began trial installations of underground distribution 
for some of their rapidly expanding developments. 

This concept was rapidly adopted by other utilities and soon there 
were many similar installations all over the United States. Each 
utility set up its own standards of construction and consequently 
there were nearly as many different types of installations as there 
were utilities using them. 

In order to achieve a semblance of standardization and uniformity 
in underground residential distribution the Insulated Conductors 
Committee and the Transmission and Distribution Committee of 
IEEE set up task groups to study the problem. Questionnaires were 
sent to all companies known to have installations of this type to de- 
termine what practices, if any, were similar in the majority of com- 
panies. The replies from these questionnaires were carefully an- 
alyzed and a report was prepared indicating the types of construction 
preferred by a majority of the companies. 

In order to adequately present and discuss the information ob- 
tained from the questionnaires, a Special Technical Conference on 


Underground Residential Distribution was held in St. Louis, Mo., 
April 21-23, 1964, at which a total of 35 technical papers were pre- 
sented by utility engineers and manufacturers' representatives from 
all areas of the country describing their practices and equipment. 

These papers had previously been bound in one volume as IEEE 
Publication No. T-160 entitled "Special Technical Conference on 
Underground Residential Distribution" which were available to all 
registrants prior to the technical sessions. This gave everyone a 
chance to read the papers prior to their presentation and to discuss 
them with complete understanding. Adequate time was provided 
for the discussions which were very informative and brought out 
many new ideas. These discussions were subsequently bound in 
one volume as IEEE Publication No. T-160-S and sent to all reg- 
istrants as a supplement to the original volume. 

In conjunction with the Special Technical Conference, there was 
also an exposition consisting of exhibits by 53 manufacturers of equip- 
ment used for underground distribution such as pad-mounted trans- 
formers, primary and secondary cable both for direct burial and con- 
duit installation, and other accessories and equipment. 

The conference was attended by over 1,100 registrants from every 
State in the Union and several foreign countries, and an additional 
400 persons attended the exposition but did not register for the con- 

A second Special Technical Conference on Underground Residen- 
tial Distribution will be held in Chicago, 111., in September 1966. 
This conference will be similar to the one held in St. Louis, but its 
purpose will be to bring everyone up-to-date on new developments 
and new equipment designed for increased economies in installing 
underground distribution. It is anticipated that we will have at least 
50 percent more registrants and probably double the number of ex- 
hibitors at the Chicago Conference. 

At the 1965 summer Power Meeting in Detroit, Mich., a sympo- 
sium will be held on Underground Distribution in Medium Load 
Density Areas which will consist of some 18 papers on current types 
of underground service to commercial areas, shopping centers, and 
large housing developments including "high-rise" apartment build- 
ings. These papers along with the discussions will be bound in a 
single volume and be available to all registrants. In connection with 
this symposium, there will be an inspection trip for all interested per- 
sons to see some of these installations on the Detroit Edison system. 


Paralleling the activities in underground distribution, IEEE has 
given considerable attention to improving the appearance and in- 
creasing the reliability of the existing overhead construction. Many 
studies have been made and papers presented on such things as im- 
proved design of transmission towers, harmonizing color of equip- 
ment, elimination of crossarms on distribution poles, use of cabled 
secondary mains, elimination of series street-lighting circuits, use of 
higher voltages for distribution circuits, reducing the height of sub- 
station structures, proper landscaping of substations and many other 
areas of improvement in appearance of all structures that at the pres- 
ent time must be maintained above ground. 

JOHN W. DYCKMAN.* It is not my intention to argue the case 
for underground utilities. The purpose of this conference is to dis- 
cuss contributions to the preservation of scenic beauty, and there are 
few who deny the impairment of view, landscape or cityscape, im- 
posed by overhead utility lines. The argument for the continued 
use of overhead utility lines has been advanced almost entirely on 
economic grounds. It is my belief that these arguments use too 
narrow a cost accounting base, undervalue a variety of social bene- 
fits, and even on economic grounds are excessively short-run in their 

The evidence of the enhancement of property value premiums in 
superior residential developments in which unsightly overhead utili- 
ties have been avoided suggest that the social valuations in question 
have a way, over time, of finding their way back into market valua- 
tions. Accordingly, I wish to concentrate our attentions on ways 
in which we might act to secure these greater long-term gains. 

1. Since the premium attached to developments which avoid un- 
sightly overhead utilities is most apparent at the time of resale, while 
the improvements themselves are paid for at the time of initial de- 
velopment, steps are necessary to bring the cost and valuation into 
more intimate phase. As a step in this direction, we should urge 
the FHA to issue directives which explicitly recognize underground 
utilities as a site improvement and a premium to the property for 
loan purposes. If the FHA and other agencies which influence or 
make loans, were to add their weight to the devaluation of develop- 
ments which violate these principles of scenic preservation and to 
support those which actively enhance the character of the develop- 

*This is an extension of the remarks made by Mr. Dyckman during the panel 


ment, a major step could be taken to overcome obstacles of somewhat 
greater initial cost in the provision of underground utilities. 

2. To secure the cooperation of utilities in this program, it is rec- 
ommended that underground utilities be included in the "billboard" 
and "scenic" provisions of the 3 percent money made available under 
the Federal highway program. If underground utilities are further 
added to the requirement for one-half percent bonus money made 
available to municipalities for scenic controls under this act, munici- 
palities and other civil subdivisions would have tangible incentives 
for local regulations and other actions which might be taken to secure 
underground utilities. 

3. Grants and loans made available to local governments under 
the community facilities program should be restricted to those im- 
provements which do not violate scenic amenities. If 20 percent 
Federal aid money were made available for new utilities develop- 
ments employing acceptable underground techniques with an in- 
crease to perhaps 30 percent aid for the relocation of utilities which 
are asthetically substandard, municipalities and locally owned or 
controlled utilities would be able to overcome any cost disadvantages 
resulting from the somewhat heavier initial capital outlay required 
by underground utilities. 

4. Municipalities should take the initiative in creating economies 
of scale in which all utilities might participate. As an example of 
such economies, localities might consolidate easement and create a 
technically superior single trench system for the joint use of various 
utilities. Federal assistance for research in the technical problems 
of utility trenches could easily be made available under existing 

5. States should overhaul legislation under which assessment dis- 
tricts might be formed to provide long-range financing of improve- 
ments, including the redevelopment and relocation of existing utilities 
systems that scar or deface scenic areas. 

6. A public information program should be mounted to make 
available accurate data on the real costs, and the public stakes, which 
are involved in the substitution of unobtrusive utility systems for 
presently offensive ones. 

H. J. JENSEN. Manufacturers serving the electrical transmission 
and distribution industry, in our observation, are devoting a great 
deal of effort and have made considerable progress in developing 


and manufacturing equipment and components to make aesthetic 
systems more economical. 

As a major supplier to the industry, the Electrical Products Divi- 
sion of Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. has directed a sub- 
stantial portion of its research and development programs to this 
goal, and has been encouraged by the reception given new develop- 
ments by both private and public utilities. The introduction of 
new cable constructions and insulations is one of the important fac- 
tors which have enabled the reduction of the cost differentials of 
underground electrical distribution in the lower voltages and even 
up to 35,000 volts with the resultant rapidly increasing growth of 
URD installations. 

Progress is now being made on insulated conductors for higher 
voltages. We ourselves are currently collaborating with a major 
southeastern utility in a test installation of 115,000-volt cable utiliz- 
ing plastic insulation in direct ground burial for underground trans- 
mission. Although it is still too early to gauge the success of this 
particular test, it is noteworthy that manufacture of cable of this 
type has only recently become possible. 

While great strides have been and will be made in underground 
distribution, industry attention has also been given to the improve- 
ment in the appearance of overhead lines through the introduction 
of more pleasingly designed equipment and conductors such as pre- 
assembled aerial cable. 

As was brought out in panel discussions, extra high voltage trans- 
mission presently has to be by overhead lines because of the extremely 
high cost ratio of underground construction for this purpose. There- 
fore it is desirable that every possible step be taken to improve the 
appearance of EHV transmission lines. Because of its lighter weight, 
aluminum conductors such as ACAR, a new type developed by 
Kaiser Aluminum which eliminates the customary steel core, allows 
towers to be placed farther apart; for example, four towers may fre- 
quently be used per mile instead of five. 

Progress has also been made in reducing the cost, weight, main- 
tenance, and silhouette of transmission towers. Aluminum guyed- 
V and guyed-Y towers can be assembled away from the installation 
site, flown there by helicopter and installed on a small concrete base. 
From an aesthetic standpoint, the slim structures are less visible 
against the skyscape, and it is not necessary to hack access roads for 
trucks and workmen through the forest areas, either for installation or 


To accomplish further and more rapid progress in the future, we 
would recommend that collaboration between electrical utilities and 
their suppliers be intensified, on both an informal and formal basis, 
to develop products and methods which will improve the aesthetics 
of transmission and distribution networks on the most economical 
basis. Both utilities and manufacturers commonly apply value 
analysis methods to increase their performance and reduce costs. By 
linking their value analyses together as it applies to this problem, 
they can achieve faster progress towards the goal. 

L. F. LISCHER.* In addressing ourselves to electric transmission 
lines (those operating at 66,000 volts or higher) and not to under- 
ground distribution, the problem is of much greater magnitude. In 
underground distribution great strides are being made so that in 
the near future such service may be provided at costs economically 
competitive with overhead distribution. For Commonwealth Edi- 
son last year 50 percent of all new residential subdivisions were sup- 
plied by underground distribution, and the total number of customers 
served from underground lines is now 140,000. 

The problems in underground transmission are far from simple. 
For example, Commonwealth Edison figures show that to provide 
the same line capacity underground as overhead at 138,000 volts, 
costs on the average 1 6 times as much ( about $400,000 per mile for 
a single underground line); at 345,000 volts this ratio jumps to 
45 times as costly for underground. A fact sometimes not readily 
apparent is that when underground transmission lines fail, as much 
as five days may be required to locate the point of failure and to make 
repairs. This, of course, necessitates duplicate facilities to avoid long 
interruptions and thus adds to the cost. 

Many metropolitan areas already have extensive underground 
transmission systems. Taking the Chicago area as an example, we 
have today 50 percent of all our transmission investment in under- 
ground lines, and on a mileage basis this represents 15 percent of all 
transmission line miles. 

There is need for considerable research on two fronts. One is 
how to build cables economically for voltages higher than 345,000 
volts (which is the highest voltage cable we know how to construct 
today) ; and second, how to provide lower cost cables and installation 
methods for those voltages for which cables are currently being built. 

*This is an extension of the remarks made by Mr. Lischer during the panel 


It seems to me that there is another avenue of approach to 
aesthetics that may be worthy of consideration; we might make much 
more pleasing in appearance the overhead tower line structures being 
built today. For example, we are right now designing a 138,000 volt 
double circuit tower line using high strength tubular steel poles with 
simple tubular upswept arms in place of the conventional lattice 
tower made of angle iron steel. Such modernistic designs (and some 
have already been built elsewhere) can be pleasing to the eye and 
be built economically. I think much can and should be done along 
these lines. 

The problems posed here are certainly most challenging and will 
demand the very best efforts of manufacturers and electric utilities. 

ROBERT L. PERKINS, Jr. Although overhead transmission lines 
have a dramatic effect on scenery and produce acute special prob- 
lems such as the destruction of bird life particularly at concentra- 
tion points in wet lands and shallow water areas, underground utili- 
ties such as pipelines can also do great damage to scenic and natural 
values. This is particularly true on lands with forests and streams 
and small waterways. 

As is the case with highways and other construction projects, 
particularly those backed by the power of eminent domain, a major 
need is to provide some orderly means of finding the relative values 
involved. Route locations and construction methods should be 
determined insofar as possible by an objective weighing of the eco- 
nomic and convenience factors against the destruction that will be 
caused, including that to scenic and natural assets. This means 
that those with a knowledge and appreciation of such assets must be 
involved in making the decisions. 

In cases where the Federal Power Commission is involved there 
is at present no real opportunity for such a process since the Com- 
missioners and the supporting administrative staff who make the 
decisions are not selected for their knowledge of matters relating to 
natural beauty. Further, many citizens who have an interest in a 
project site may have no practical means of finding out about pro- 
posals until after a decision has been made, since most people do not 
maintain a scrutiny of the Federal Register where notice is given. 

R. J. McMuLLiN.* Let me begin by saying that I am very cog- 
nizant of and deeply concerned about the problem we are gathered 
here to talk about. 

*This is an extension of the remarks made by Mr. McMullin during the panel 


I think I can speak for most of us here representing the electric 
utility industry when I say that throughout our history we have given 
emphasis to perfection of technology, continuity of service, quality of 
service in other respects such as voltage regulation and so forth. In 
addition, one of our foremost considerations has been to lower con- 
sumer costs. In this regard, I don't believe the electric utility indus- 
try can be matched. A quick look at the average cost per kilowatt- 
hour over past years compared to other consumer costs will reveal 
this fact. 

This has all been good, but a new consideration has been coming 
to the front during the past few years. Due to increasing pressures of 
public desire and opinion and our own realization of the need 
improving the appearance of our service facilities in the community 
has been added to our list of goals. In planning distribution and 
transmission systems, many utilities have already adopted a philos- 
ophy giving weight to the factor of appearance, as a community 
benefit, equal to those traditional factors of need, function and cost. 

At the Salt River Project, we have coined the expression "com- 
munity styling" which embodies this philosophy. "Community 
styling" is the concept against which we are measuring our construc- 
tion plans. 

To achieve improved appearance, the most desirable situation 
would be attained if all of our transmission and distribution could be 
installed underground. A great deal of progress has been made 
toward this end in the area of lower voltage distribution systems. To 
achieve this goal for transmission lines in the near future appears 
at the moment to be very unrealistic. 

To measure progress in underground residential distribution, 
Electric Light and Power magazine reported in its April 1965 issue 
that results from a widespread survey of electric utilities indicated : 

1 . Many utilities predict total underground residential distribution 
for all new installations in five to ten years. 

2. Ninety-two percent of the utilities surveyed in 1964 were open- 
minded or in favor of underground residential distribution, whereas 
60 percent were opposed in 1960. 

3. In total-electric "Gold Medallion" developments, the ratio of 
underground to overhead costs was approximately 1^4 to 1, and 
many of the utilities absorb the cost difference of underground to 
obtain the higher kilowatt-hour usage in Gold Medallion develop- 


4. Present design dates back to 1959 and service reliability has 
been excellent. (This tends to eliminate a major question mark for 
many utilities. ) 

5. The swing to underground residential distribution is accelerat- 
ing as the cost ratio of underground to overhead lowers. 

Practical answers are being found by electrical manufacturers and 
utilities. Residential distribution is going underground and that 
part of the problem will soon be approaching complete solution. 

The picture looks vastly different, however, when considering high 
voltage transmission systems. 

The present difference in costs between overhead construction and 
underground is so great that underground construction is definitely 
impractical except in those metropolitan high-rise areas where it 
can be justified by extremely high load density. This cost difference 
has been stated to be 5-15 times greater for underground under 
some circumstances, and as high as 50 times greater for extra high 
voltage lines in other situations. I can offer little hope that this prob- 
lem can be solved in the near future. 

As frustrating as this problem may appear, there are, however, 
things we can do and should do. 

First, it seems to me, all of us should give encouragement with time, 
effort and money to intensified research for improved underground 
transmission line materials, equipment and technology to foreshorten 
the time necessary to reach the goal of underground transmission. 

Perhaps one of the answers might be found in underground direct 
current transmission, if concentrated research were able to overcome 
the termination problems and costs. 

Next, why not direct our attention into those areas where interim 
measures might produce improvements in appearance of these 
lines, although falling short of the ultimate of underground installa- 
tions? In this regard, I would like to suggest a few ideas which, 
though untested, might stimulate thought and discussion. 

1. When laying out the route of long distance high voltage lines, 
why not try to select rights-of-way that would tend to hide the line, 
blend it into the surroundings through which it will travel, and place 
it so as to preserve natural scenic beauty even though hi isolated 
areas? Perhaps if we give equal weight to the factor of appearance 
in our considerations, the shortest distance between two points isn't a 
straight line any more. 

779-595 65 26 


2. For those stretches of these lines approaching cities, why not 
start right now to find ways and means to go underground even at 
present costs? 

3. As a corollary to the ideas I have just mentioned, perhaps public 
agencies such as cities, counties, States, and even the Federal Govern- 
ment should assume proportionate shares of the added cost of follow- 
ing out these suggestions. This might be accomplished by granting 
the electric utilities specific tax credits which would have the effect of 
relieving them of the entire burden of the added cost attributable to 
improved appearance and preservation of natural beauty. 

All costs of utility operations must finally be paid by the customers, 
as we all know. It can be forcefully argued that to pass these added 
costs on to the electric consumer would be an inequity, because the 
benefits of beautification work do not accrue solely to these customers. 
We can all find illustrations of this fact, I'm sure. For example, a 
transmission line might be rerouted to preserve the natural beauty 
and public view of the Painted Desert or Meteor Crater in Arizona. 
How much of the cost to do so should be paid by the electric cus- 
tomers of the city of Los Angeles, or the Salt River Project or the 
Arizona Public Service Co.? In my opinion, there is merit to the idea 
that such costs should be spread over a broader base. The base 
should be determined by examining the question, "To whom do the 
benefits flow from the beautification work which caused the added 

My comments are not intended to represent pat answers to a 
problem as complex as this one. I do hope though that they might 
provoke constructive thought. This is one of the greatest challenges 
ever to confront the electrical industry. If we probe our imagina- 
tions, if we turn our creative resources to the task, if we can have the 
support of our government's leadership (as is being evidenced here at 
this meeting), the electrical industry will be able to measure up to 
the job and continue to occupy a position of major leadership in the 
growth and progress of our Nation. 

JACK B. ROBERTSON. Except for the United States, the industrial- 
ized nations have generally adopted a policy of undergrounding of 
utility lines. Modern insulation materials have now made possible 
the long life undergrounding of utility lines within the economic reach 
of an affluent nation. 

To facilitate the burial of utility lines, the following is recom- 
mended : ( a ) Require utility lines be buried leading to all newly con- 


structed Federally-insured houses or housings, and (b) require an 
effective program for undergrounding of utility lines (including the 
requirement that all public and private new construction and major 
remodeling include undergrounding) as an element of every urban 
renewal "workable program" and as a precondition of all Federal 
renewal, housing, community facilities, urban highway, landscaping, 
etc., assistance. 

GLENN L. SMITH. Although much of the Nation's ugliness 
abounds in urban areas, a lot of America's otherwise scenic rural 
vistas are blighted by a multiplicity of manmade objects d'horror. 
Leading the field, of course, are billboards, auto junkyards, dilapi- 
dated housing and scarred, mined-out countryside; but unsightly 
overhead transmission and distribution utility lines contribute more 
than an equal share to the total problem. 

Some research is being conducted to bring about a technological 
breakthrough in undergrounding high-voltage transmission lines. 
There seems to be no real promise of much being accomplished in 
the near future to get costs down to practical limits. Thus, we can 
expect to have the tall towers cut their swath through the valleys and 
over the hills and mountains for years to come. But what about rural 
electric and telephone distribution l